Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

QuailOS

by com.quailos
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

submit_wiki_article

Submit a community wiki article proposal for admin moderation review. Supports confirm and idempotency validation.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "farmId": "<farmId>",
      "title": "<title>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "submit_wiki_article"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleYesThe article title (5-150 characters)
farmIdYesThe unique farm ID submitting the article
confirmNoSet to true to commit, false for dry-run preview
contentYesThe article body in Markdown (50-50,000 characters)
categoryNoOptional category (max 60 characters, default: General)
idempotencyKeyNoUnique request idempotency key

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that submissions go to moderation rather than publishing live and that a confirm/idempotency mechanism exists, but it never says what state the article lands in or whether repeated submits create duplicates.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and outcome, with no filler. The second sentence is slightly vague ('supports confirm and idempotency validation') but earns its place by signalling the preview/commit flow.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a 6-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the destination (moderation queue) but not the result: whether an article ID or pending status is returned, what validation failures look like, or how the idempotency key affects retries. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter including confirm's dry-run semantics and idempotencyKey is already documented in the schema. The description only echoes 'confirm and idempotency validation' without adding format, ordering, or interaction rules, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Submit a community wiki article proposal') plus the destination ('admin moderation review'), which clearly separates it from read-side siblings like get_public_wiki_pages. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the write/submit intent is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

'for admin moderation review' implies this is the entry point for user-contributed wiki content, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives. The dry-run versus commit distinction is only hinted at by 'Supports confirm'.

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

All QuailOS toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources