DevFlow MCP Server

wiki_get_page

Resolve a wiki reference by slug, title, or display_id to get the corresponding asset with its backlinks.

Instructions

Resolve a wiki reference to a concrete asset and return it with backlinks. The raw can be a slug (e.g. "adr-014"), a doc_page title, or a flow display_id.

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

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`raw`	Yes	Slug, title, or display_id to resolve
`projectId`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv4.35.0Jun 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It mentions returning the asset with backlinks, but does not disclose error behavior, authentication needs, or rate limits. It does not contradict any annotations.

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, front-loaded sentences that convey the core purpose and parameter options without excess. Every word earns its place.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given no output schema, the description should explain the return value more fully. It says 'return it with backlinks' but omits structure, which is insufficient for a tool that resolves multiple asset types.

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?

Schema coverage is 50% (only 'raw' has a description). The description adds concrete examples of valid values (slug, title, display_id), increasing clarity beyond the schema. However, it does not describe 'projectId'.

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 resolves a wiki reference (slug, title, or display_id) to a concrete asset and returns it with backlinks. This distinguishes it from siblings like wiki_search, doc_page_get, and wiki_backlinks.

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 description provides examples of what 'raw' can be (slug, title, display_id), which implies when to use this tool, but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like doc_page_get or adr_get, nor does it specify when not to use it.

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

Deploy Server