cc-agent

get_wiki

Retrieve all wiki pages for a GitHub repository to inspect the structured knowledge injected into autonomous agent spawns.

Instructions

Return all wiki pages for a repo. Wiki pages are structured knowledge injected automatically into every spawn_agent call for the repo. Use this to inspect what knowledge is stored.

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": {
      "repo_url": "<repo_url>"
    },
    "name": "get_wiki"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`repo_url`	Yes	Repository URL, e.g. 'https://github.com/gonzih/cc-agent'

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.16.15Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds context about wiki pages being 'injected automatically into every spawn_agent call,' which is helpful, but it does not disclose potential side effects, errors, or authorization needs.

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?

The description is two sentences containing no fluff: the first states the primary function and the second provides additional context and a usage suggestion. It is front-loaded and concise.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the basic purpose and context. However, it omits details about the return format and does not distinguish from sibling list_wiki_pages, leaving some gaps.

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?

The single parameter (repo_url) has 100% schema description coverage with an example. The description adds no extra meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Return all wiki pages for a repo,' which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'list_wiki_pages,' which likely performs the same function, causing some ambiguity.

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 suggests using the tool to 'inspect what knowledge is stored,' which implies a use case. It does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or compare it to alternatives like list_wiki_pages.

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