gitbook_get_pageGet a single page's content from a space by its page ID. GitBook REST: GET /spaces/{spaceId}/content/page/{pageId}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| format | No | Response format — 'document' (structured, default) or 'markdown'. | |
| pageId | Yes | The page id. | |
| spaceId | Yes | The space id. |
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=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the REST endpoint but no further behavioral insights (e.g., error handling, auth requirements, or rate limits). It does not contradict annotations, but beyond the safety hint, it adds little extra behavioral context.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the action. It includes the REST endpoint for reference without unnecessary fluff. Every word earns its place, making it concise and well-structured.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (single get operation, read-only hint, and complete schema), the description is adequately complete. It lacks only optional details like error responses, but for a simple read with good schema coverage, it does not need extensive additional context. The endpoint reference adds useful context.
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?
The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, including the format enum and required IDs. The description itself mentions 'by its page ID' but does not elaborate on the format parameter or add semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states the specific action: 'Get a single page's content from a space by its page ID.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gitbook_list_pages (which lists pages) and gitbook_search_space (which searches). The verb 'Get' and resource 'page' with scope 'single' and 'by its page ID' provide precise purpose.
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 context is implied by mentioning 'single page' and the need for a page ID, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like listing pages or searching. It does not mention exclusions or alternative tool names. The guidance is minimal and inferred rather than stated.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action (e.g., get vs list vs search, change-request vs page vs space), so there is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity between tools.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with a uniform gitbook_ prefix (e.g., gitbook_list_spaces, gitbook_get_page, gitbook_create_change_request). The naming is predictable and systematic.
14 tools is slightly high but still reasonable for a documentation platform API covering resources like spaces, pages, change requests, collections, organizations, and search. Each tool has a clear purpose, though the set feels a bit broad with several read-only operations.
The set is heavily read-focused and lacks essential write operations for pages and spaces (create, update, delete), which are core to GitBook's purpose. It does cover change-request lifecycle partially (create, list, update) but omits merge/delete and page editing, leaving noticeable gaps.