get_page_contentGet the full HTML content of a single OneNote page (Microsoft 365 note) by its ID. Returns the page body as HTML. Use after list_pages to read a user's OneNote note in full.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page_id | Yes | The ID of the OneNote page to retrieve (from list_pages). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the return format ('Returns the page body as HTML') and confirms the scope ('full HTML content'), which is useful beyond the annotations. No contradictions.
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?
The description is two short, purposeful sentences. It front-loads the action and resource, then states the return format and usage sequence with no filler.
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?
For a one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. Minor omissions like error or auth details are not material for this simple tool.
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 100%, and the single page_id parameter is already documented as 'The ID of the OneNote page to retrieve (from list_pages).' The description adds no semantic detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Get the full HTML content of a single OneNote page... by its ID.' It also clarifies what is returned ('page body as HTML'), making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like list_pages.
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?
The description explicitly says 'Use after list_pages' to read a user's OneNote note in full, providing clear contextual guidance. It does not enumerate when not to use alternatives, but the prerequisite relationship is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tools are genuinely easy to confuse: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly described as currently identical, and the five polymarket_* tools overlap significantly in purpose. There are also wrapper-like pairs such as ai_visibility_check vs. scan_competitor_ai_presence and entity_profile vs. recent_changes vs. compare_entities that require reading long descriptions to disambiguate.
The names are mostly lowercase snake_case and readable, but there is no consistent verb_noun pattern: entity_profile and recent_changes are noun phrases, pipeworx_trending and pipeworx_feedback use a prefix, ask_pipeworx_beta is a single-family variant, and scan_competitor_ai_presence uses a different structure from ai_visibility_check. The naming is not chaotic, but it is a mix of conventions.
A server labeled Microsoft Onenote exposes 31 tools, none of which actually relate to OneNote note-taking, notebooks, or pages. Even as a general research/prediction-market server, 31 tools is far above the coherent range, and for the stated product purpose this count is wildly inappropriate.
For the server's declared OneNote domain, there is zero coverage: no tools for creating, reading, updating, or deleting notes, pages, sections, or notebooks. The actual tool surface is centered on Pipeworx data lookups, Polymarket arbitrage, and memory helpers, which leaves the apparent note-taking domain completely unrepresented.