gitbook_list_pagesList all pages in a space with their hierarchy and metadata. GitBook REST: GET /spaces/{spaceId}/content/pages.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| spaceId | Yes | The space id. | |
| computed | No | Include computed properties in the response. | |
| metadata | No | Include page metadata in the response. |
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 declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is already known. Description adds hierarchy/metadata and REST endpoint, but no deeper behavioral context such as pagination or response size. Credit for added context beyond annotation.
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?
Two sentences, both informative: purpose and REST endpoint. No redundancy or 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?
Simple read-only list tool with high schema coverage and readOnlyHint. Description states purpose and endpoint. No output schema, but not required for simple list. Minor gap: no explicit pagination note, but low complexity keeps completeness high.
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?
Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions for spaceId, computed, and metadata. Description adds no param-specific syntax beyond 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?
Description uses specific verb 'List' with resource 'pages in a space' and scope 'all pages', clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like gitbook_get_page (single page) and gitbook_list_spaces (all spaces).
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?
Clear context: use this when you need all pages in a space. Does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so not a 5. Sibling tools imply alternatives.
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.