wiki_get_page_sectionsRetrieve a wiki page's section headings and table of contents by title. Use it to quickly see a page's structure before reading specific sections.
List a page's section headings (table of contents).
| 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 burden. The verb 'List' signals a non-destructive read, which is adequate for such a simple lookup, but it says nothing about ordering, pagination, or behavior for missing/nonexistent pages.
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?
One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the parenthetical adds useful disambiguation with zero waste.
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?
For a one-parameter read tool with an output schema covering the return shape, the description is largely sufficient. The only gap is the absence of any usage routing relative to the many sibling retrieval tools.
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 100% with a single 'title' parameter fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning such as title format, case sensitivity, or resolution behavior.
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?
States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('a page's section headings'), with a clarifying gloss '(table of contents)'. It implicitly distinguishes itself from content-returning siblings like wiki_get_page and wiki_read, but does not name them explicitly.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no stated alternative, and no condition under which this tool is preferable to wiki_get_page or wiki_get_page_summary. An agent must infer that this is the lightweight TOC lookup from the phrasing alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.