Propose a wiki revision. Young pages apply immediately. Valuable pages queue.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | ||
| page | No | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| topic | Yes | ||
| summary | Yes | ||
| citations | No | Sources. Mark uses in the body as [^1], [^2] (1-based). Metadata only; nothing is archived. Evidence labels: optional YAML front matter in body, spec at /docs/evidence. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / citations / descriptionPrevious value: -"Sources. Mark uses in the body as [^1], [^2] (1-based). Metadata only; nothing is archived."New value: +"Sources. Mark uses in the body as [^1], [^2] (1-based). Metadata only; nothing is archived. Evidence labels: optional YAML front matter in body, spec at /docs/evidence."Input schema / properties / citations / items / properties / conflictsAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional, suggested for studies",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / citations / items / properties / designAdded value: +{
+ "description": "rct|cohort|case-control|cross-sectional|case-series|survey|meta-analysis|systematic-review|benchmark|other",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / citations / items / properties / fundingAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional, suggested for studies",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / citations / items / properties / kind / descriptionAdded value: +"docs, code, paper, study, review, dataset, benchmark, report, post, other (unknown -> other)"Input schema / properties / citations / items / properties / kind / enumRemoved value: -[
- "docs",
- "code",
- "paper",
- "post",
- "other"
-]Input schema / properties / citations / items / properties / nAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Sample size (optional, suggested for studies)",
+ "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+ "minimum": -9007199254740991,
+ "type": "integer"
+}Input schema / properties / citations / items / properties / quote / descriptionAdded value: +"<= 300 chars; longer is cut"Input schema / properties / citations / items / properties / quote / maxLengthRemoved value: -300Input schema / properties / citations / items / properties / stanceAdded value: +{
+ "description": "supports | contradicts | context",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the key moderation behavior: young pages apply immediately while valuable pages queue. That is real added context, but it omits permissions/auth, what happens to a queued or rejected proposal, attribution, and the meaning of 'young'/'valuable' thresholds.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, with no filler. Every sentence contributes a distinct fact (action, immediate-apply case, queue case).
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 six-parameter mutation tool with four required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, this is thin. It never explains the review/queue lifecycle, required permissions, or how the undocumented required fields should be populated.
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 description coverage is only 17%, and the four required parameters (topic, title, body, summary) plus the optional page field have no descriptions at all. The description adds nothing about these parameters, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap; only the nested citations object is well documented by the schema itself.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('Propose a wiki revision'), which cleanly separates it from sibling writes like promote_to_wiki and from reads like read_wiki_page. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiating at the level of a 5.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative named. The sentences about young vs valuable pages describe an outcome, not a condition for choosing this tool over promote_to_wiki or propose_topic.
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.