knowledgeowl_requestPower-user escape hatch: GET any KnowledgeOwl API path not wrapped by a dedicated tool. READ-ONLY — only GET is allowed. Pass the FULL API path after the base, starting with a slash, INCLUDING any query string, e.g. "/article.json?_page=2" or "/category/abc123.json". Returns the parsed JSON.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Full API path after the base, starting with "/", e.g. "/article.json?_page=2". |
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, and the description reinforces this with 'READ-ONLY — only GET is allowed'. It adds concrete behavioral details: the requirement to pass a full path starting with slash and including a query string, and the parsed JSON return format. Safety is fully covered; no contradiction.
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 with zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by actionable usage rules and examples. Every word 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?
For a one-parameter raw request tool with readOnly annotation and no output schema, this is complete. It covers path construction, allowed method, restrictions, and return type. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.
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% with the path parameter already described and exemplified. The description repeats the same example and emphasizes 'INCLUDING any query string', which the schema example already implies. It adds no significant semantic value beyond the schema.
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 (GET) and resource (any KnowledgeOwl API path not wrapped by a dedicated tool), making it clear this is a raw escape hatch. Distinguishes itself from the many specific sibling tools by explicitly targeting unwrapped paths. The examples show exact usage patterns.
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?
Explicitly frames when to use: 'any KnowledgeOwl API path not wrapped by a dedicated tool', which doubles as a when-not condition. The sibling tool list provides the alternatives. 'Power-user escape hatch' signals this is for advanced cases outside normal tooling.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose targeting a specific resource (article, category, glossary, etc.) and action (create, get, list, update). There is no ambiguity or overlap between tool names.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: create_X, get_X, list_X, update_X. The exception 'knowledgeowl_request' is a utility escape hatch, clearly marked, and does not break the overall pattern.
At 24 tools, the set is slightly above the typical 3-15 range but still well-scoped for a knowledge base API covering many resources. Each tool serves a distinct purpose, and no tools are redundant.
The tool set lacks delete operations for all resources, and update operations are only available for articles and categories. Missing get tools for glossary terms, snippets, and other resources, though list tools are provided. This leaves significant gaps in lifecycle coverage.