wikipedia-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v2.0.1
Disambiguation1/5
Every tool has a duplicate with the 'wikipedia_' prefix, making it impossible to tell them apart. The descriptions are identical, so agents cannot distinguish between e.g. get_sections and wikipedia_get_sections, leading to high misselection risk.
Naming Consistency2/5
The original tools use a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_article, search_wikipedia), but the addition of 'wikipedia_' prefixed duplicates mixes conventions and creates redundant, awkward names like wikipedia_search_wikipedia. This inconsistency makes the API feel disorganized.
Tool Count2/5
At 22 tools, the server is heavily over-inflated; each of the 11 unique operations is exposed twice. This doubles the cognitive load and suggests poor API design, even though the underlying feature count is reasonable.
Completeness4/5
For a read-only Wikipedia API, the unique tools cover the core operations well: search, retrieval, summaries, sections, links, coordinates, and related topics. Minor advanced features like page categories or edit history are missing, but the surface is largely complete for typical use.
Average 3.9/5 across 22 of 22 tools scored. Lowest: 3.1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 2 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which already cover the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the basic search action, such as result format, pagination, or API limitations. It does not contradict the 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?
The description is a single concise sentence, 'Search Wikipedia for articles matching a query,' which front-loads the verb and resource without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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?
The tool has a complete input schema, output schema, and safety annotations, so the description does not need to explain return values or safety. However, the description is incomplete in that it does not address the relationship to the sibling tool 'search_wikipedia', which appears to be nearly identical, leaving the agent unsure which to use.
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 input schema fully describes both parameters with 100% coverage (query and limit with descriptions). The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 the tool searches Wikipedia for articles matching a query, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'search_wikipedia', which appears to have an identical purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_wikipedia' or other Wikipedia tools. There is no mention of exclusions, use cases, or relationships to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds that it returns a dictionary with title and sections, but this is minor and the output schema likely covers return value details. No additional behavioral context (e.g., error handling, edge cases) is provided.
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, front-loaded with the action, and contains no fluff. Every sentence adds information about what the tool does or returns.
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 parameter, strong annotations, and an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It states the core functionality and return type, though it could improve by adding usage context relative to siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining the 'title' parameter, but it does not. It simply repeats the word 'title' without adding meaning about format, exactness, or disambiguation.
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 the tool retrieves the sections of a Wikipedia article, which is a specific verb+resource. It differentiates from most sibling tools (e.g., get_summary, get_article), though it does not distinguish from the similar sibling 'get_sections'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_article or get_summary. The description only states what the tool does, with no contextual hints or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the return behavior ('Returns a dictionary containing the section summary or an error'), which goes beyond the annotations. It doesn't mention max_length effects, but the annotation coverage lowers the required burden.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and no filler or redundancy.
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?
The tool has annotations and an output schema, and the description states purpose and return type. However, it lacks parameter semantics, usage guidelines versus siblings, and any mention of max_length or error handling nuances, leaving meaningful gaps for a 3-parameter tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description provides no explanation for the parameters (title, section_title, max_length). It does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions, leaving parameter semantics entirely to the agent's inference from names.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a specific section of a Wikipedia article'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_summary (whole article summary) and get_sections (list sections). It also states the return type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_summary or summarize_article_for_query. The usage is only implied by the phrase 'specific section', with no explicit when/when-not or sibling differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it returns a dictionary or an error, which is useful but minimal. It does not disclose other behavioral traits beyond the return format.
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 concise, two sentences, with the main purpose front-loaded. Every sentence provides relevant information without unnecessary filler.
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?
The tool is simple and has an output schema, but the description lacks usage guidance and parameter detail. It does not clarify differences from nearly identical sibling tools like 'summarize_article_section', leaving some ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any parameters. While title and section_title are self-evident, max_length is left ambiguous, and the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
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 gets a summary of a specific section of a Wikipedia article, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_summary (whole article) and get_sections (list sections) by explicitly mentioning 'specific section'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions or alternative tools for different scenarios, leaving the agent without context for appropriate selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'Returns a dictionary containing coordinate information,' which is a behavioral trait but largely redundant given the output schema. No additional context about errors or coordinate format is provided, but annotations lower the bar.
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 extremely concise—two short sentences with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the core action and immediately useful.
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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, read-only, strong annotations, and an output schema), the description is mostly sufficient. It covers the core purpose and return type. However, it lacks usage guidelines and parameter elaboration, which would make it fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one required parameter 'title' with no description (0% schema coverage). The description's phrase 'of a Wikipedia article' implicitly links title to an article, but it does not elaborate on expected format or any additional constraints. The description does not fully compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
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's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the coordinates of a Wikipedia article.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_sections or get_summary, which serve different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The purpose implies usage for coordinate retrieval, but there is no direct context to help an agent decide between this and other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), lowering the bar for description. The description adds only that a dictionary is returned, which is also documented by the output schema. No behavioral details like error handling are provided, but none contradict the 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?
The description is two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and states the return type without unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple one-parameter tool with a strong output schema and clear annotations. The description fully covers the tool's purpose and basic behavior, and the existing schema/annotations cover the rest. Nothing essential is missing.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The only parameter, 'title', is self-explanatory and the description's reference to 'Wikipedia article' adds context that the title is the article's title. However, no additional detail or format is given, making this adequate but not exceptional.
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 'Get the coordinates of a Wikipedia article' with a specific verb and resource, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'get_coordinates' which appears to perform the same function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool or how it differs from alternatives. Given the presence of many sibling tools including what looks like a duplicate, the lack of usage context is a notable gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return format ('dictionary containing a list of facts') and optional topic behavior, but does not disclose rate limits, error behavior, or other runtime traits. With strong annotations, this is sufficient but not exceptional.
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 sentences, each earning its place: the first states the action, the second states the return type. No fluff, front-loaded with purpose.
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?
The tool is simple with strong annotations and an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return details. However, the 'count' parameter is left undocumented in both the schema and description, creating a clear gap. The description is adequate for a basic read tool but not complete for all parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only hints at the 'topic_within_article' parameter via 'optionally focused on a topic', leaving 'count' and 'title' semantics unexplained. The 'count' parameter's effect on the number of facts is not mentioned, making the description insufficient for full parameter understanding.
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 action ('Extract key facts') and the resource ('Wikipedia article'), with an optional topic focus. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_summary or get_sections by explicitly mentioning the output is a list of facts.
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 implies when to use the tool (when key facts are needed) but does not provide explicit exclusions or alternatives. The phrase 'optionally focused on a topic' offers some context, but it does not mention when not to use this tool or compare it to the many summary/section tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds that it returns a dictionary or an error message on failure, which provides some behavioral context beyond annotations, but does not disclose additional details like rate limits or response structure.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and no redundant information. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function.
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?
The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, and annotations are comprehensive. However, given the many sibling tools, the description could be more complete by noting the scope (e.g., full content vs. summary) and any prerequisites. It is adequate but under-specified for the broader context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'title' parameter beyond the tool's name. Since there is only one parameter, the description should compensate but does not, leaving the parameter semantics largely undefined.
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 'Get the full content of a Wikipedia article' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_summary and get_sections by emphasizing 'full content'.
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?
Usage is implied: this tool is for fetching full article content. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to prefer other tools like get_summary or get_sections, so guidance is limited.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as result ranking, pagination, or network behavior. It merely restates what could be inferred from the tool name and annotations, providing no extra transparency.
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 a single concise sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. There is zero verbosity and all words add value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple search tool, the description combined with rich annotations and a complete input schema is sufficient. The output schema exists, so return values are accounted for, and the safety and world assumptions are covered by annotations. No additional context is necessary for an agent to select and invoke the tool.
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 description coverage is 100%, so both 'query' and 'limit' are fully documented. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a 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's function: 'Search Wikipedia for articles matching a query.' This uses a specific verb ('search') and a clear resource ('Wikipedia') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_article or get_summary, which retrieve specific content rather than perform a search.
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 implies usage (when you need to find articles by query) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_sections or get_links, which are alternatives for other purposes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this as a safe read-only operation (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). The description adds the return format (dictionary with title and links), but discloses no additional behavioral traits such as error handling, pagination, or behavior for nonexistent articles. It does not contradict 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?
The description is two sentences with no redundant words, directly stating the function and the return value. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.
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?
The tool is simple, has an output schema, and comprehensive annotations. The description covers the core function and return structure, which is sufficient for the tool's simplicity. It does not mention edge cases, but those are not necessary given the context and schema.
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 schema has a single required parameter 'title' with 0% schema description coverage. The description implicitly refers to the article title but provides no explicit parameter semantics, format, or examples. For a single obvious parameter, the meaning is inferable from the tool's purpose, but the description does not compensate for the lack of schema description.
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 identifies the action 'Get' and the resource 'links contained within a Wikipedia article', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_sections or get_summary. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.
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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage by stating what it does, but lacks any stated criteria, prerequisites, or exclusions that would help an agent choose this tool over siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying the return type (dictionary) and error handling (error message if retrieval fails), which is useful context beyond what annotations provide.
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 redundant information, and the main purpose is front-loaded. Every word 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 the simple parameter set and strong annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It covers the primary outcome and failure mode. An output schema exists, so detailed return value documentation is unnecessary.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not elaborate on the title parameter. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description fails to add meaning about formatting, disambiguation, or other nuances, leaving the agent to infer.
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 retrieves the full content of a Wikipedia article, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_summary or get_sections by emphasizing 'full content'.
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 implies the tool should be used when full article content is needed, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. The presence of multiple similar sibling tools (e.g., get_article, get_summary) makes this a missed opportunity for clearer guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the return format ('dictionary with the title and summary string') and error behavior ('includes an error message instead of a summary'). This goes beyond what the annotations convey.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or extraneous content.
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 parameter and strong annotations, the description adequately covers the main behavior, return content, and error handling. It does not mention language edition or filtering options, but these are not necessary for a summary operation. The absence of an explicit output schema in the context is mitigated by the description's mention of the return structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate. The 'title' parameter is not explained; the description only refers to 'a Wikipedia article,' leaving the agent to infer that 'title' is the article title. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description adds no additional semantic detail.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get a summary of a Wikipedia article.' It clearly states what the tool does and aligns with the tool name. While there are siblings like 'get_summary', the description is unambiguous enough to distinguish this tool as the Wikipedia-specific summary retriever.
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 implies usage when a summary is needed but offers no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like get_article or get_sections. It does not mention exclusions or provide comparisons, so usage context is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and open-world hints. The description adds that topics are derived from links and categories and that the result is limited by the 'limit' parameter, which is useful but not extensive. It does not disclose additional behaviors like error handling or ordering, so the added value is moderate.
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 with no redundancy, front-loaded with the core action. Every word contributes meaning.
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 the simple tool, the presence of output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter behavior. It does not discuss edge cases (e.g., when no related topics exist) but that is not critical here. Slight lack of usage differentiation relative to siblings keeps it from a 5.
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 has 0% description coverage, but the description effectively explains both parameters: 'Wikipedia article' refers to the required 'title', and 'up to the specified limit' explains the 'limit' parameter. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.
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 'Get topics related to a Wikipedia article based on links and categories', which is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_links. It accurately conveys the function in two concise sentences.
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 implies usage (when you need related topics) but does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives such as get_links or get_sections. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, so guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds the return structure (dictionary with article title and list of links), which is not covered by the annotations. This provides useful context beyond the structured data.
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, front-loaded with the main action and followed by the return format. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler.
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 the simple getter nature, strong annotations, and existence of an output schema, the description is sufficient. It covers the primary action and return type. It does not address edge cases or errors, but these are less critical for a read-only tool with clear annotations.
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 0%, and the description does not explicitly define the 'title' parameter. However, it is strongly implied that the parameter refers to the Wikipedia article title, given the phrasing 'within a Wikipedia article.' The description partially compensates but could be more explicit.
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's function: 'Get the links contained within a Wikipedia article.' This is a specific verb and resource, and it differentiates from sibling tools like get_article or get_summary. The mention of a return value further clarifies its purpose.
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 implies when to use the tool (when you need links from an article) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like get_article or get_summary. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, only the core action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a safe read-only operation. The description adds the return structure (a dictionary with title and sections), which is helpful but largely covered by the output schema. No additional behaviors like error handling are disclosed, so a mid-range score is appropriate.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, and contains zero fluff. It is appropriately sized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
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, annotations covering safety, and an output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to use it. It clearly defines the operation and result shape.
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 schema provides no description for the 'title' parameter (0% coverage), but the description clarifies it's the Wikipedia article title. This adds essential meaning, though no further constraints or format details are given.
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 retrieves sections of a Wikipedia article. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like get_article and get_summary.
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?
The description provides a clear use case (get sections of a Wikipedia article) and implicitly indicates when to use it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior, allowing the description to focus on additional context. It discloses the return structure (dictionary with title and summary) and error behavior (error message instead of summary), which goes beyond the 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 sentences with no wasted words. The description is front-loaded with the primary action and immediately provides the essential return and error information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, one self-explanatory parameter, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description is complete. It covers the key behavior (returns summary) and edge case (error message), so the agent has enough information to use the tool correctly.
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?
With 1 parameter and 0% schema coverage, the description does not directly explain the 'title' parameter. However, the name 'title' is self-explanatory in the Wikipedia context, and the description implicitly references it as the article title. This is adequate but not exceptional, so a 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 gets a summary of a Wikipedia article, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_article (full article) and get_sections (sections) by focusing specifically on the summary.
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 implies usage by naming the summary function, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over similar sibling tools like summarize_article_for_query or extract_key_facts. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by explicitly stating the return type ('a dictionary containing a list of facts') and the optional topic focus, which are behavioral details not covered by 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?
The description is only two sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and the return type in the second. Every word earns its place, and there is no fluff or redundancy.
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?
The tool is simple (3 straightforward parameters, with an output schema present and strong annotations), so the description covers the essential behavior and return type. Minor gaps include lack of parameter details and no explicit comparison to similar tools, but these do not undermine usability given the low complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all parameters. While it explains 'topic_within_article' indirectly ('focused on a topic'), it does not explain 'count' or the exact role of 'title'. Given 3 parameters and no schema descriptions, this leaves a significant meaning gap.
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's function with a specific verb ('Extract') and resource ('key facts from a Wikipedia article'), and includes the optional topic focus. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_summary or get_article, which produce different outputs.
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?
The description implies appropriate usage ('optionally focused on a topic') but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast it with alternatives. It conveys that this is for extracting facts rather than summaries or full articles, which provides clear contextual guidance without explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral context by explaining it returns a list up to a specified limit and that relatedness is based on links and categories, which goes beyond the structured hints.
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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word adds value. There is no fluff or repetition of schema annotations.
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 the simple two-parameter schema, clear annotations, and existing output schema, the description covers the essential behavior. It could explicitly guide selection among sibling tools or mention edge cases, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a straightforward read-only tool.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains 'limit' via 'up to the specified limit' and implies 'title' through 'a Wikipedia article.' While not exhaustive, these cues give meaning to both parameters beyond the raw schema, though a more explicit mention of title would improve completeness.
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 it retrieves related topics to a Wikipedia article based on links and categories, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_links or get_sections, which focus on different aspects of an article.
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 implies its usage for obtaining related topics, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. Sibling tools such as get_links and get_summary exist, but no differentiation or exclusion is provided, leaving the agent to infer the right context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description adds valuable behavior details: return fields (base API URL, language, site info, response time) and failure handling (status='failed' with error details). This complements the annotations without contradicting them.
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 and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The first sentence states what the tool does, and the second sentence details the output and failure behavior. Every word contributes meaning; there is no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with no parameters and an output-schema present, the description is fully sufficient. It explains the return values and failure status, covering all necessary contextual information for an agent to invoke the tool appropriately.
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?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so the description has no parameters to explain. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately refrains from inventing unnecessary parameter details.
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's purpose: 'Provide diagnostics for Wikipedia API connectivity.' It uses a specific verb ('provide diagnostics') and a well-defined resource ('Wikipedia API connectivity'), making it distinct from sibling tools that retrieve content or perform searches.
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 implies its usage as a connectivity diagnostic tool but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. Since no sibling tool performs diagnostics, the usage context is inferred rather than directly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the summary is a snippet around the query within the article text or summary, and max_length controls snippet length. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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, efficiently front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a concise explanation of the snippet and max_length. Every sentence adds value with no fluff.
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?
With an output schema present and strong annotations (readOnly, idempotent), the description covers the core behavior and key parameter. It does not explain edge cases like query-not-found behavior, but this is not essential given the schema and annotations. The tool is well-specified for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly explains max_length ('controls the length of the snippet') and implicitly explains query ('tailored to a specific query') and title (the article title). This adds meaning beyond the bare parameter names, though it does not elaborate on constraints or defaults for title and query.
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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get a summary of a Wikipedia article tailored to a specific query.' This distinguishes it from generic summary tools like get_summary and from section-specific summarize_article_section, by emphasizing query-tailored output.
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?
The description clearly implies when to use the tool: when a query-focused summary is needed. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'Use get_summary for generic article summaries.' The context is clear but lacks explicit comparison with siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds useful context: the output is a snippet around the query, and max_length controls snippet length. No contradictions with 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 sentences front-load the purpose and add one functional detail. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.
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 read-only tool with output schema and good annotations, the description covers purpose, snippet mechanics, and the length control. It doesn't address edge cases like missing articles, but that is not critical given the annotations.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining max_length explicitly and clarifying that title identifies the article and query determines the snippet location. This goes beyond the raw 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?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get a summary of a Wikipedia article tailored to a specific query.' This specifies a concrete verb, resource, and distinguishes it from siblings like get_summary by emphasizing query-tailored output.
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?
The description implies when to use the tool: when a query-specific summary or snippet is needed. It explains the snippet behavior but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the return payload (base API URL, language, site information, response time) and the failure behavior (status 'failed' with error details). This is useful supplementary information, especially given the readOnly and idempotent annotations already present.
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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every word adds value. It avoids redundancy and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (no parameters) and the description covers its function, return value, and failure mode. An output schema is present, so the description does not need to detail return structure further, making the description complete for this context.
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?
With zero parameters, the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The schema already covers all parameters (none), and the description adds no unnecessary parameter detail, meeting the baseline for a zero-parameter tool.
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's purpose: 'Provide diagnostics for Wikipedia API connectivity.' This uses a specific verb (provide) and resource (connectivity diagnostics), and it is clearly distinct from sibling tools that fetch content or search Wikipedia.
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?
The description gives clear context that this tool is for checking API connectivity, which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, though sibling tools are obviously for different purposes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![wikipedia-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/LLLeoLi/wikipedia-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/LLLeoLi/wikipedia-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![wikipedia-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/LLLeoLi/wikipedia-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/LLLeoLi/wikipedia-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/LLLeoLi/wikipedia-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server