getOpen a BookStack page, book, chapter, or shelf by ID and type. Returns page Markdown and location, book contents, chapter pages, or shelf books for reading and navigation.
Open one item by id. page → full content as Markdown plus its location. book → table of contents (chapters and pages). chapter → its pages. shelf → its books.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| type | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With only readOnlyHint=true declared, the description carries most of the behavioral burden, and it does disclose the shape of the result per type (Markdown content + location for pages, chapter/page TOC for books, etc.). It stops short of covering error cases (invalid id, missing item) or permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Four short clauses, zero filler, front-loaded with the core action and then the per-type return mapping. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, and the description compensates by spelling out the return shape for each type. What remains missing (error behavior, permission/visibility constraints) is minor for a single-item read.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters, and it does give real meaning to every 'type' enum value (page/book/chapter/shelf) and clarifies that 'id' selects one specific item. It says nothing about id formatting or scope/visibility limits.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (open one item) plus the resource (BookStack item) and enumerates what 'item' means per type. It is clearly distinguishable from search/list/create/update/delete siblings by implication, though it never names an alternative explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied: fetch a single known item by id, as opposed to search or list. No explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no alternative tool is named, so the agent must infer the boundary from the sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.