Skip to main content
Glama

wikipedia

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Get Article Sections

get_article_sections
Read-onlyIdempotent

Section outline of a Wikipedia article by title — the table-of-contents. Returns all headings + hierarchy (H2, H3, etc.) without the prose. Use when the article is long (history, science topics, biographies) and you want to navigate to a specific section vs reading the entire summary. Chain with get_article_summary for the lead text. Cheap, structural-only.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleYesWikipedia article title (e.g., "World War II")

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleYesArticle title
pageidYesWikipedia page ID
sectionsYesArray of section headings with hierarchy

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. Description adds concrete behavioral context: 'Cheap, structural-only' and clarifies that it returns headings without prose, which is useful beyond the structured fields. No contradiction found.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose in the first clause, then follows with targeted usage guidance, chaining recommendation, and a performance note. Every sentence earns its place—minimal and efficient.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the single-parameter schema, rich annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, performance, and chaining. It is appropriately complete for a simple, structural-only tool without over-explaining.

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 100% with a clear explanation and example for the title parameter. Description only restates 'by title', adding no meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource: returns the section outline/table-of-contents of a Wikipedia article. Clearly distinguishes from siblings with 'without the prose' and references get_article_summary for lead text, establishing a unique scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit when-to-use: long articles needing navigation to a specific section, directly contrasting with 'entire summary'. Names get_article_summary as a chaining alternative. However, it does not specify when not to use or mention other siblings like get_article_extract, making guidance clear but not exhaustive.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All wikipedia toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tool families have ambiguous boundaries: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are three variants of the same router (with beta currently identical), and the six polymarket tools plus bet_research heavily overlap in scanning and pricing edges. discover_tools, suggest_questions, and deep_research also all function as 'what should I query' entry points. Agents will struggle to select the right tool without carefully reading long descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

Many tools follow a clear verb-first snake_case pattern (get_article_extract, resolve_entity, subscribe, validate_claim), and families like ask_pipeworx_* and polymarket_* are internally consistent. However, notable noun-phrase outliers such as entity_profile, deep_research, bet_research, recent_changes, pipeworx_feedback, and polymarket_edge_tracker break the convention. The naming is readable but not predictable across the full set.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is well over the 25+ threshold for a typical MCP server, and for a server named 'wikipedia' it is especially disproportionate: only 5 tools actually deal with Wikipedia while 31 are Pipeworx data, prediction-market, memory, subscription, and feedback utilities. The count reflects a broad all-in-one platform crammed into a Wikipedia-labeled surface rather than a well-scoped server. This is a significant scope mismatch.

Completeness4/5

The Wikipedia portion is reasonably complete for read-only lookup: search, summary, sections, full extract, and random discovery cover common encyclopedic questions without dead ends. The broader Pipeworx surface is also extensive, with query, grounded verification, deep research, entity resolution/profile/comparison, claim validation, memory, and subscription lifecycle tools. Minor gaps remain (no article categories/history, no update for subscriptions, no direct fetch of a citation URI), but they are workable.

Resources