Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

apibase

by io.github.whiteknightonhorse
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Wikipedia Edit Count Aggregate

wikimedia-analytics.edits.aggregate
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get total edit counts for a Wikimedia project over a date range, bucketed daily or monthly. Filter by editor type (anonymous, group-bot, name-bot, user, or all-editor-types) and page type (content, non-content, or all-page-types). Data: Wikimedia Analytics REST API (wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1), no auth required.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "project": "<project>",
      "start": "<start>",
      "end": "<end>"
    },
    "name": "wikimedia-analytics.edits.aggregate"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
endYesEnd date in YYYYMMDD format (e.g. 20260801)
startYesStart date in YYYYMMDD format (e.g. 20260801)
projectYesWikimedia project domain (e.g. en.wikipedia, de.wikipedia, commons.wikimedia)
page_typeNoPage namespace type filter (default all-page-types)
editor_typeNoEditor type filter (default all-editor-types)
granularityNoTime bucket granularity (default monthly)

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
errorNoPresent only when the call failed. Includes error code, message, request_id, and any provider-specific extras.
resultNoTool response payload. Shape varies per tool — consult the tool description and inputSchema. May be an object, array, string, or number depending on the upstream provider response.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already communicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior; the description adds external API identity and explicitly states no auth required. It also clarifies it aggregates edits rather than pageviews, which is useful context. No behavioral claims conflict with annotations.

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?

Three short sentences: purpose, filter dimensions, and access/auth are each addressed in one focused sentence with no redundancy. The core action is front-loaded before the details.

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?

For a six-parameter aggregate with a rich schema and output schema, the description covers selection, filtering, granularity, data source, and authentication. Since output schema exists and annotations describe safety, nothing critical is missing for invoking it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline applies. The description reinforces the enum semantics for editor_type, page_type, and granularity ('anonymous, group-bot...', 'content, non-content...', 'daily or monthly'), but adds little beyond the schema's own per-property descriptions and defaults.

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?

The first sentence uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get total edit counts for a Wikimedia project over a date range' and clarifies bucketing. It also names the Wikimedia Analytics REST API, distinguishing this from pageviews/commons siblings by the edit-count domain.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It does not explicitly identify when to choose this tool over wikimedia-analytics.pageviews.aggregate or pageviews.per_article, nor state exclusions. The phrase 'edit counts' implies the use case, but an agent is left to infer the boundary from sibling names.

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

All apibase toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources