DevFlow MCP Server

wiki_search

Search all wiki assets (flows, doc pages, reviews, releases) to find relevant ADRs, patterns, and runbooks before planning. Returns title and snippet for each hit.

Instructions

Full-text search over all wiki assets (flows, doc_pages, reviews, releases). Uses SQLite FTS5 with prefix matching. Returns hits with title + snippet.

Use this when the user asks "what do we know about X?" or to find relevant ADRs/Patterns/Runbooks before planning.

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": {
      "q": "<q>"
    },
    "name": "wiki_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`q`	Yes	Search query
`limit`	No	Max results (default 20)
`projectId`	No	Project ID (defaults to linked project)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv4.35.0Jun 7, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses technical detail (SQLite FTS5 with prefix matching) and return format (title + snippet). However, does not mention read-only nature, rate limits, or permissions. Adequate but could be more comprehensive.

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?

Three sentences: purpose and scope, technical detail, usage guidance. Each sentence adds essential information with no redundancy. Efficient and well-organized.

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?

No output schema; description explains return values ('title + snippet') and covers assets searched. Does not detail pagination or ordering, but limit parameter is in schema. Sufficient for a search tool with good schema coverage.

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 descriptions for all three parameters. Description adds context for 'q' by stating full-text search over wiki assets, but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 performs full-text search over specific wiki assets (flows, doc_pages, reviews, releases). It uses precise verb 'search' and lists the resource types, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'wiki_get_page' or 'search'.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Provides explicit when-to-use scenarios ('when the user asks what we know about X', 'to find relevant ADRs/Patterns/Runbooks before planning'). Does not mention when not to use or compare to alternatives like 'search', but gives clear context.

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

Deploy Server