summaryPage summary.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | ||
| title | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dir | No | Text direction (ltr/rtl) | |
| lang | No | Language code | |
| title | No | Page title | |
| extract | No | Page summary text | |
| revision | No | Revision ID | |
| thumbnail | No | ||
| displaytitle | No | Display title | |
| lastmodified | No | Last modification date | |
| originalimage | No |
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 indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context, such as what 'summary' entails or any side effects. With annotations covering the basics, a 2 reflects the lack of value added.
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 only two words, which is underspecified rather than efficiently concise. It fails to convey essential information and does not earn its place.
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 presence of an output schema, the description should still explain the tool's behavior. It does not mention return values, scope, or anything beyond 'Page summary,' making it inadequate for an agent to understand what the tool does.
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%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist in the schema. The description does not explain the 'title' (required) or 'lang' parameters, leaving their purpose ambiguous.
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 'Page summary.' is vague and does not specify what the tool does beyond a generic term. It fails to distinguish from sibling tools like 'entity_profile' or 'deep_research', which likely also provide summaries in some form.
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. There are many sibling tools, and the description offers no context for selection.
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.