read_pageFetch any Ninova page and return a structured summary of its text, headings, links, tables, and attachments for easier review.
Fetch any Ninova page and return a structured summary of text, headings, links, tables, and attachments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| compact | No | ||
| link_limit | No | ||
| include_text | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.1Output schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -trueOutput schema / propertiesAdded value: +{
+ "result": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "title": "Result",
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+}Output schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "result"
+]Output schema / titlePrevious value: -"read_pageDictOutput"New value: +"read_pageOutput"v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the output is a 'structured summary' with specific content categories; it says nothing about truncation or the effect of link_limit=200 default, which is the main behavioral risk for a scraping tool.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the parameter and usage detail flagged elsewhere.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile, but for a 4-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage the description omits all parameter meaning and any usage context. An agent cannot confidently set compact or link_limit from this definition alone.
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 description coverage is 0% for four parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails it: compact, link_limit and include_text are never mentioned. Only the content-type list loosely hints at what include_text/link_limit control, with no defaults, units or trade-offs explained.
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 (Fetch) and resource (any Ninova page) plus the shape of what comes back (text, headings, links, tables, attachments). It does not differentiate itself from close siblings such as snapshot_page or read_resource_text, which also ingest page/resource content, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. an authenticated session, given siblings like auth_status/refresh_session), and no routing to alternatives such as snapshot_page for archival reads. The agent must infer the usage context entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.