wiki_get_page_infoRetrieve page metadata such as last edit, length, revision ID, and URLs by supplying a page title. Use it to inspect wiki page details without reading full content.
Page metadata: last edit, length, last revision id, URLs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | Page title |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read operation by listing metadata fields, but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, behavior for missing pages, or whether the page must exist before calling.
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?
Eight words with zero waste and the key information front-loaded, which is good. But the noun-fragment form is terse to the point of under-specification for a tool that needs routing guidance.
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?
An output schema exists and the schema fully documents the sole parameter, so much of the burden is lifted. Still, with 11+ wiki siblings and no disambiguation or usage context, the definition is only minimally sufficient to call the tool correctly.
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?
There is a single parameter (title) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no format, namespace, or case-sensitivity detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3 for schema-covered parameters.
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 fragment names the resource (page metadata) and enumerates the returned fields (last edit, length, last revision id, URLs), which hints at the distinction from wiki_get_page. However there is no verb and no explicit differentiation from close siblings like wiki_get_page_summary or wiki_get_site_stats, so the agent must infer the scope.
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 contains no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and does not name an alternative tool. An agent gets no signal about when to pick this over wiki_get_page, wiki_get_page_summary, or wiki_get_site_stats.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.