WikiPeatia MCP Server

Wiki Get Page

wiki_get_page

Fetch a wiki page's raw content by title, returning wikitext or HTML for reading, parsing, or citing articles in the WikiPeatia wiki.

Instructions

Get the raw content of a wiki page.

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": {
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "wiki_get_page"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`title`	Yes	Page title (e.g. 'Thyroid', 'PUFA', 'Ray_Peat', 'Library:Thyroid' -- Library namespace is accepted too)
`format`	No	'wikitext' (raw wiki markup) or 'html' (rendered HTML)	wikitext

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 2, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Get the raw content' implies a read-only operation and unrendered output, but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, error handling for missing pages, or what 'raw' excludes. Most behavioral disclosure is absent.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. For a simple getter, this is appropriately sized.

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

Completeness2/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but with no annotations and a crowded set of near-identical siblings, the description should at minimum differentiate itself from wiki_read and wiki_get_page_summary. That gap leaves the agent under-informed.

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%, so both 'title' (with namespace examples) and 'format' (wikitext vs html) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter detail beyond that, matching the baseline of 3.

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 ('Get') and resource ('raw content of a wiki page'), which is clear enough to distinguish it from wiki_get_page_summary and wiki_read by the word 'raw'. However, it never names or explicitly contrasts those siblings, so the differentiation must be inferred.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus the many similar siblings (wiki_read, wiki_get_page_summary, wiki_search). No prerequisites, no conditions, no exclusions are stated; usage is only implied by the tool name.

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