WikiPeatia MCP Server

Corpus Topics

corpus_topics

List the topic tags that organize this collection to identify themes like thyroid, PUFA, or cortisol.

Instructions

List the corpus's topic tags (e.g. 'thyroid', 'pufa', 'cortisol').

Useful to see what themes the corpus is organized around.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "corpus_topics"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, but for a zero-parameter read-only enumeration there is little behavior to disclose. It does not state whether results are paginated, cached, or ordered, and adds nothing beyond the implied read semantics of 'list'.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a brief rationale. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists, so the return shape needn't be described, and with no parameters the description is nearly complete. It could be strengthened by noting how these topic tags relate to filtering/search tools, but nothing essential is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what an empty schema already conveys. The inline examples of tag values are a modest, helpful addition.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('the corpus's topic tags') and concretizes it with real examples ('thyroid', 'pufa', 'cortisol'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like corpus_list_doc_types and corpus_list_authors by naming a distinct resource, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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?

The second sentence gives a reason to call it ('Useful to see what themes the corpus is organized around'), which implies usage context. However, it offers no when-not guidance and never names an alternative tool (e.g. corpus_search) for actually querying those themes.

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