Fetch the full Markdown of one documentation page by its id (the id returned by search).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The page id returned by search (its path). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| url | Yes | ||
| text | Yes | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| metadata | No |
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?
With no annotations, the description should fully disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a read operation ('Fetch') but lacks details on potential limitations, authorization, rate limits, or any side effects. The minimal content leaves agents guessing.
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 that conveys the essential purpose with no unnecessary words. Every part 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?
Given the output schema exists (not shown but referenced), the description's brief mention of 'full Markdown' suffices. Combined with schema coverage, the tool is mostly complete for its simplicity, though more sibling differentiation would help.
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 schema describes the 'id' parameter, and the description adds context that it is the id returned by search. This clarifies the origin and expected format, adding 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?
The description clearly states it fetches the full Markdown of one documentation page by its id. It implies a read operation and references the id from search, distinguishing it from listing or search tools, though not explicitly from get_page.
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 mentions using the id returned by search, providing a prerequisite hint. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus siblings like get_page or search_docs, nor does it exclude scenarios.
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.
Tools are mostly distinct: list_pages and search/search_docs serve different entry points, and fetch/get_page retrieve by id vs path. However, the presence of two search tools and two retrieval tools could cause mild confusion, though descriptions clarify intended workflows.
Naming is inconsistent: mix of verb-only (fetch, search) and verb_noun (get_page, list_pages, search_docs). No consistent pattern, and 'fetch' vs 'get_page' feel arbitrary.
With 5 tools, the server covers essential doc operations (list, search, read). Slightly more than minimal, but reasonable for a documentation server.
Core operations are covered: listing all pages, searching, and retrieving full content. Minor gap: no tool for browsing by section or getting metadata only, but generally complete.
