[duvera · risk:low] Get the lead summary of a Wikipedia article by title (e.g. "Zero_trust_architecture"). Use wiki.search first to find the exact page key. No account required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | Article title or page key, e.g. "Ada Lovelace" or "Zero_trust_architecture" (from wiki.search results). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It discloses the 'risk:low' label and 'No account required' trait, but does not detail rate limits or error behaviors. Still, it is transparent about the read-only nature and simplicity.
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?
Single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. The prefix '[duvera · risk:low]' is consistent and concise.
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?
Tool is simple (1 param, no output schema, no annotations). Description fully covers how to use it, what it returns, and how to prepare input. No gaps.
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 already covers 'title' parameter with a description (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the format (e.g., 'Ada Lovelace' or 'Zero_trust_architecture') and its relation to wiki.search results.
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 clearly states verb 'Get' and resource 'lead summary of a Wikipedia article', with an example title. It distinguishes from sibling wiki.search by specifying the purpose of retrieving the summary after finding the page key.
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 instructs to 'Use wiki.search first to find the exact page key', providing clear when-to-use guidance and linking to the sibling tool. Also notes 'No account required', which sets expectations.
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 is prefixed with its service name, and within each service, tools have distinct actions (e.g., mail_read vs. availability_find). The duvera tools cover different subdomains like dev, finance, and food with no overlap, making selection unambiguous.
All tools follow the pattern service__action_object or service__category_action, using lowercase with underscores. The order of verb and noun varies slightly (e.g., package_track vs. boardingpass_show), but the naming is highly predictable and readable.
With 52 tools, the server is large but justified as a gateway aggregating many external services. Each tool corresponds to a common task for its service, so no tool feels extraneous, though the total number is high.
The tool surface covers a wide array of services but only provides one or two basic operations per service (mostly read-only). While this suits a quick-lookup gateway, deeper workflows (e.g., creating or updating resources) are missing, leaving gaps for many use cases.
