Skip to main content
Glama

List wiki pages

list_wiki_pages
Read-onlyIdempotent

Every page in the campaign's wiki, by name, with its type, a short excerpt and how often it is mentioned. Returns: The pages.

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": {
      "campaign": "<campaign>"
    },
    "name": "list_wiki_pages"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNoOnly pages of this type.
campaignYesThe campaign, by its slug (what its link says) or its id.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add value by naming the returned fields (name, type, excerpt, mention frequency), but says nothing about ordering, pagination, truncation of excerpts, or behavior for an empty or unknown campaign.

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?

The first sentence is dense and front-loaded with the resource, scope and payload. The trailing 'Returns: The pages.' restates what the first sentence already established and could be dropped or replaced with something more useful.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple two-parameter read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly and to know what comes back. Missing pagination/ordering details are minor for this complexity level.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema with an enum for type. The description adds no additional meaning about the slug-vs-id form of campaign or about filtering by type, so the baseline 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-plus-resource ('Every page in the campaign's wiki') and enumerates the fields returned. It is clearly a bulk listing, distinguishable from get_wiki_page and create_wiki_page, though it never names a sibling to draw the contrast explicitly.

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 phrase 'Every page in the campaign's wiki' implies bulk retrieval as opposed to fetching one page, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to get_wiki_page/create_wiki_page. Usage has to be inferred from the sibling names.

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.