file_infoFile metadata (size, mime, license, upload date, thumbnail urls).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | e.g. "File:Cat.jpg" |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | ||
| batchcomplete | No | Whether the query is complete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "title": "File:Cat.jpg"
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "File:Mona_Lisa.jpg"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "batchcomplete": {
+ "description": "Whether the query is complete",
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "query": {
+ "properties": {
+ "pages": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "imageinfo": {
+ "description": "Image information array",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "extmetadata": {
+ "description": "Extended metadata (license, author, etc)",
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "height": {
+ "description": "Image height in pixels",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "metadata": {
+ "description": "File metadata",
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "mime": {
+ "description": "File MIME type",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "sha1": {
+ "description": "SHA1 hash of file",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "size": {
+ "description": "File size in bytes",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "thumbheight": {
+ "description": "Thumbnail height",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "thumbmime": {
+ "description": "Thumbnail MIME type",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "thumburl": {
+ "description": "Thumbnail URL",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "thumbwidth": {
+ "description": "Thumbnail width",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "timestamp": {
+ "description": "Upload or last edit timestamp",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "url": {
+ "description": "Full file URL",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "user": {
+ "description": "Uploader username",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "userid": {
+ "description": "Uploader user ID",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "width": {
+ "description": "Image width in pixels",
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "missing": {
+ "description": "True if file not found",
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "ns": {
+ "description": "Namespace ID",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "pageid": {
+ "description": "Page ID",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "title": {
+ "description": "File title",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is well-covered. The description adds no new behavioral details (e.g., error cases, rate limits, or data freshness). Adequate but not enhanced.
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?
Single sentence listing key metadata fields, with no extraneous content. Efficient and front-loaded. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points), but within acceptable limits.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 simple parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema present), the description covers the core purpose and return fields. Lacks usage guidance, but overall adequate for a read-only lookup tool.
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 100%, so the parameter 'title' is fully documented in the schema. The description does not add extra meaning beyond listing return fields, which is not about the parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description provides no additional semantic value for parameters.
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?
Description specifies the resource ('File metadata') and lists specific fields (size, mime, license, upload date, thumbnail urls), clearly indicating what is returned. It distinguishes from sibling 'file_revisions' by focusing on current metadata rather than version history. Missing an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'get', but still strong.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'file_revisions' or search tools. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or context for usage, leaving the agent to infer without clear direction.
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.
Multiple tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical routers, and the six polymarket_* tools plus bet_research all cover prediction-market analysis with blurry boundaries. The server name 'Commons Wikimedia' also clashes with 30+ Pipeworx tools, making the overall purpose ambiguous. Only the handful of Commons-specific tools (category_members, file_info, file_revisions, random_image, search) are clearly distinct.
All names are lowercase snake_case and many follow a noun_phrase pattern (entity_profile, polymarket_edges, recent_changes), but verb styles are inconsistent: some are bare verbs (search, recall, subscribe), some are verb_noun (generate_llms_txt, resolve_entity, validate_claim), and several are noun-only (category_members, file_info, pipeworx_feedback). The style is readable but not predictable, mixing action-first and object-first conventions.
36 tools is far too many for a server ostensibly named 'Commons Wikimedia' — the vast majority belong to the Pipeworx data platform, not Wikimedia Commons. The count exceeds the 25-tool threshold for 'too many,' and the scope mismatch between the server name and the actual toolset makes the abundance feel even more unjustified.
For 'Commons Wikimedia,' the surface is severely incomplete: there is no upload, no category tree navigation, no file download, and no structured search beyond full-text. For the Pipeworx domain, coverage is broad but indirect — most data access funnels through aggregate/meta tools (ask_pipeworx, entity_profile, deep_research) rather than direct per-source tools, leaving gaps for granular lookups and leaving the Commons tools stranded with no real integration.