page_mediaImages, videos, and other media embedded in a Wikipedia article. Use for "show me pictures of X", "what images are on the X Wikipedia page", or to find Commons-hosted media tied to a topic.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| project | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which cover safety aspects. The description adds scope (embedded media, Commons-hosted material) but does not disclose potential limitations like return format or size constraints. Given the annotation coverage, this is an adequate but not exceptional contribution.
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?
The description is compact, with two sentences: a clear definition and practical usage examples. No unnecessary words, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose.
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?
With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description sufficiently conveys the tool's purpose and usage. The main gap is the lack of parameter explanation, but for a relatively simple tool with output schema, the description is reasonably complete.
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 any parameters. It implies 'title' through 'Wikipedia article' but leaves 'lang' and 'project' entirely unaddressed. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions, offering little additional meaning beyond the parameter names.
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 clearly identifies the tool's function: retrieving images, videos, and other media embedded in Wikipedia articles. It provides specific example queries ('show me pictures of X') and distinguishes it from sibling page_* tools by focusing on media content rather than text or metadata.
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?
The description gives clear usage examples and context, such as queries about images on a page or Commons-hosted media. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or compare with alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.
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.