cc-agent

update_wiki_page

Creates or updates a wiki page in a repository using markdown content. Pages are automatically injected into agent spawns for the repo.

Instructions

Create or update a wiki page for a repo. Content is markdown. Pages are auto-injected into spawn_agent calls for this repo.

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>",
      "page": "<page>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "update_wiki_page"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	Yes	Page name (human-readable, e.g. 'Architecture', 'Gotchas')
`content`	Yes	Markdown content for the page
`repo_url`	Yes	Repository URL

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.16.15Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Discloses that content is markdown and that pages are automatically injected into spawn_agent calls for the repo, which is a key behavioral trait beyond mere storage. With no annotations, this adds significant value, though it could mention overwrite behavior or permission requirements.

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 sentences, no extraneous information. Front-loaded with the main action, then provides critical context about markdown and injection. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose, input format, and a notable side effect (auto-injection). It is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role, though it could mention idempotency or response format.

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 good descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds minimal extra value, only confirming that content is markdown. The page name and repo_url are already well-described in the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Create or update') and the resource ('wiki page for a repo'). Differentiates from siblings like get_wiki_page, delete_wiki_page, and list_wiki_pages by including both create and update in one tool.

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 context that pages are auto-injected into spawn_agent calls, indicating when this tool is useful. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternative methods (e.g., direct API calls) or 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.