file_revisionsFile revision history.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| title | Yes |
| 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"
+ },
+ {
+ "limit": 10,
+ "title": "File:Ancient_manuscript.pdf"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "batchcomplete": {
+ "description": "Whether the query is complete",
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "query": {
+ "properties": {
+ "pages": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "imageinfo": {
+ "description": "Array of image revisions",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "comment": {
+ "description": "Edit summary or comment",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "sha1": {
+ "description": "SHA1 hash of revision",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "size": {
+ "description": "File size in bytes",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "timestamp": {
+ "description": "Revision timestamp",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "url": {
+ "description": "File URL for this revision",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "user": {
+ "description": "Editor username",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "userid": {
+ "description": "Editor user ID",
+ "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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the name itself, such as authorization requirements or rate limits.
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?
While short, the description is under-specified and does not front-load essential information. Single phrase lacks structure; every word does not earn its place because it fails to add value.
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 low schema coverage and missing parameter documentation, the description is incomplete. Even though an output schema exists, the input side is not adequately described for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
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 0%, and the description does not explain the purpose or constraints of the 'title' or 'limit' parameters. The agent has no guidance on how to use them.
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 'File revision history.' is essentially a tautology, restating the name 'file_revisions' and title 'File Revisions'. It does not use a specific verb or resource to differentiate from siblings like file_info.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., file_info). The context signals show many sibling tools, but the description offers no context.
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.