Skip to main content
Glama

Suggest edits to the Eigma wiki

eigma_suggest_edits
DestructiveIdempotent

Use this when the user asks to organize, verify, cite, add sources, merge, dedupe, move, rename, delete, restructure, refine, or add quizzes to pages that ALREADY exist in their Eigma wiki. This is the ONE tool for every edit to the existing wiki; new pages from the current conversation come from eigma_save_notes instead. It writes: this one call queues the changes into the user's Eigma review inbox, and nothing touches the wiki until the user accepts each change there. Call it ONCE per request and relay the receipt it returns. Put every change from this request into ONE call with ONE ops array; each op is an object {kind, ...} where kind is move, merge, delete, rename, update_page, edit_quizzes, or add_page. Reference each page by its EXACT title + category_path (verbatim from eigma_browse_wiki or eigma_read_page); an id is valid only when it came from reading that page. A verify, cite, or add-sources request is an update_page op whose body_md carries the corrected page with inline [^n] citations and a ## References section (each definition written as "[^N]: label" carrying the source's REAL link (a bare source name with no URL becomes a dead, unclickable reference)): draft it and send it here rather than answering in prose. If nothing needs changing, propose nothing. A refine op MAY add a mermaid or svg diagram or ONE self-contained ```animation widget (inline CSS/JS, no external network) to a body_md; most pages need neither.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
opsYesThe proposed changes as ONE reviewable DRAFT changeset. Never applied directly: each op waits in the user's Eigma inbox to be accepted or rejected, and is reversible. Put EVERY change from this request into this one array.
intentNoShort label for this change task, e.g. "tidy Deep Learning chapter".
reportNoOptional SHORT memo note (what changed + what to revisit). Not shown at review.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
opsNo
rowsNo
intentNo
queuedNo
reportNo
nothingNo
op_countNo
chapter_notesNo
already_queuedNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the annotations, it discloses the core workflow behavior: the call queues a draft into the user's review inbox, nothing touches the wiki until each change is accepted, and it is reversible. It also adds the critical operational constraint to call it ONCE per request and relay the receipt, which no annotation conveys.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Well front-loaded: the primary trigger, scope boundary, and write semantics come first, with op-specific detail after. It is dense and mostly earns its length for a seven-op tool, though the mermaid/animation guidance is somewhat redundant with the schema and could be trimmed.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of a multi-op changeset tool, the description covers the routing, the review-inbox write model, the one-call-per-request constraint, and the citation-authoring convention. With an output schema present, return-value explanation is correctly omitted, so nothing essential is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% (baseline 3), but the description adds real semantics: the ops array holds ONE object per change with kind in {move, merge, delete, rename, update_page, edit_quizzes, add_page}, pages must be referenced by EXACT title + category_path, and verify/cite is modeled as update_page with inline [^n] footnotes plus a ## References section. It meaningfully extends beyond the schema's field descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb+resource ('this is the ONE tool for every edit to the existing wiki') and explicitly contrasts scope with eigma_save_notes for new pages. An agent can distinguish it from all seven siblings without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives an explicit trigger list (organize, verify, cite, merge, dedupe, move, rename, delete, etc.), a clear when-not boundary ('pages that ALREADY exist'), and names the alternative tool (eigma_save_notes) for the excluded case. Routing is unambiguous.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources