Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
DevFlow MCP Server

DevFlow MCP Server

by FaerberK
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

wiki_get_index

Retrieve a hierarchical wiki index grouped by lifecycle stage so you can quickly see what documentation exists for the project, from release to deprecated.

Instructions

DF-312 — Hierarchical TOC of the project's wiki, grouped by lifecycle_stage (release / plan / idea / superseded / deprecated). Each entry has id, displayId, title, lifecycleStage, documentType, tags, updatedAt.

Use this for "what does the wiki actually contain" — global counterpart to wiki_get_briefing (which is per-flow).

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": "wiki_get_index"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectIdNoProject id (defaults to linked project)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv4.35.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry the burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, permissions, rate limits, or error conditions. The description focuses on output structure but lacks safety or side-effect info.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences plus key info about output fields. Front-loaded with purpose and grouping, no redundant words.

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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately lists output fields. Lacks pagination or filtering details, but completeness is high given tool simplicity.

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% with parameter description for projectId. The description does not add extra semantics beyond the schema, meeting baseline expectation.

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 description clearly states the tool returns a hierarchical TOC grouped by lifecycle_stage, listing specific fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling wiki_get_briefing as the global counterpart.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly says 'Use this for what does the wiki actually contain' and contrasts with wiki_get_briefing (per-flow), providing clear when-to-use guidance.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools