Skip to main content
Glama

wiki_pageviews

Wikipedia pageview analytics: per-article attention trends or project top-100 by day.

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": {
      "start": "<start>",
      "end": "<end>"
    },
    "name": "wiki_pageviews"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
endYesYYYYMMDD
startYesYYYYMMDD
articleNoArticle title for per-article series
projectNoDefault en.wikipedia
granularityNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that project mode returns a top-100 daily list and that article mode returns a trend series, but it omits rate limits, data freshness, error behavior, and whether date ranges are capped.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately establishes the domain and the two available query shapes.

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 five-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally viable. It conveys the two query modes but leaves the interaction between article and project, the meaning of monthly granularity, and the shape of returned data implicit.

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 80%, so most parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds only high-level hints: 'per-article' maps to the article parameter and 'project top-100' maps to the project parameter, but granularity (daily/monthly) and how article/project interact remain unexplained.

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?

The description names the resource (Wikipedia pageviews) and the two analytical modes: per-article attention trends or project top-100 by day. It is specific enough for an agent to understand the tool's function, though it does not explicitly differentiate from any sibling tool.

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?

The 'or' construction implies two usage modes (article-level series vs project top-100), but the description never states when to choose one over the other, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is therefore implied rather than explicit.

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