searchWikiquote title + fulltext search.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | ||
| limit | No | 1-50 (default 10) | |
| query | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | Number of items returned. | |
| items | Yes | Wikiquote search results |
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 and idempotentHint, so the agent knows it is safe. The description adds the specific scope (Wikiquote, title+fulltext) but does not elaborate on behavior like pagination, response format, or any constraints. It is adequate but minimal.
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 a single sentence that conveys the core functionality without fluff. It is front-loaded and efficient. However, it could benefit from additional context without becoming verbose.
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?
While the output schema exists and annotations provide safety, the description fails to explain parameter usage or when to employ this tool. The contextual completeness is low, as the agent remains underinformed about how to construct queries or how results are scoped.
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?
With only 33% schema description coverage, the description should clarify the missing parameter semantics for 'query' and 'lang'. It does not: the tool description only states it searches, without explaining what 'query' expects or what 'lang' does. This leaves the agent without necessary parameter guidance.
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 as performing searches on Wikiquote, covering both titles and fulltext. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_within' or 'quotes', which might have overlapping functionality. The purpose is well understood but not contrasted.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings such as 'search_within' or 'quotes'. It lacks explicit context or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to guess the appropriate use case.
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.
The tool set mixes four Wikiquote tools with 31 unrelated Pipeworx/Polymarket tools, creating a confusing dual identity. Within the research tooling, ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-synonyms, and polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk overlap heavily, making selection ambiguous.
All names are snake_case, but patterns vary: some are verb-first (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, resolve_entity), some noun-first (entity_profile, polymarket_arbitrage, quote_of_the_day), and several are bare verbs or nouns (search, summary, remember, quotes). Prefix groups like ask_pipeworx* and polymarket_* are consistent, but the overall convention is mixed.
35 tools is excessive for a server named Wikiquote, as only 4 tools (quote_of_the_day, quotes, search, summary) actually serve that domain. The remaining 31 form an unrelated general research and prediction-market toolkit, making the set feel bloated and off-scope for its stated name.
As a Wikiquote server, the surface is severely incomplete: there is no random quote, page listing, author/topic browsing, or any write/update operations, and the few quotation tools are buried among unrelated functionality. The unrelated research tools may be internally rich, but they do not address the server's stated purpose.