wiki-mcp
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v0.2.0
- Disambiguation5/5
The three tools have clearly distinct purposes: orientation (read_orientation), discovery (search_wiki), and retrieval (get_page). There is no ambiguity about which tool to call for a given need, even though search_wiki and get_page both return page content, they serve different stages of a workflow.
Naming Consistency5/5All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case: read_orientation, search_wiki, get_page. The naming is predictable and aligns with the action each tool performs.
Tool Count3/5With only 3 tools, the server is on the thin side but not extreme. It covers basic reading and searching operations, but for a wiki server one might expect additional tools like listing or writing, making the count feel slightly limited for the domain.
Completeness2/5The tool surface lacks any write operations (create, update, delete) and does not provide a straightforward way to list all pages without parsing the index. This is a significant gap for a wiki, as agents cannot modify or manage content, only read and search.
Average 3.9/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 4 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
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.jsonto 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
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It discloses that the tool performs a search across content and frontmatter and can filter by tag, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly mention side effects, error behavior, or whether results are limited or paginated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences with no redundant wording. It front-loads the main purpose and appends the optional filter, making it easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the basic search behavior and optional tag filter, but it omits details about result ordering, limits, or exact matching. Since an output schema is indicated, return-value details may be available elsewhere, but the description lacks guidance on how this tool relates to the sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning beyond the bare schema by explaining that 'query' searches content/frontmatter and that 'tag' filters results. This clarifies both parameters, though it does not elaborate on expected formats or edge cases.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool searches content and frontmatter across four specific directories and optionally filters by taxonomy tag. It is specific about the resource and action, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling tools read_orientation and get_page.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is provided about when to use search_wiki instead of the sibling tools. The verb 'searches' implies a different use case from reading a specific page, but the description does not state this or offer any alternative selection criteria.
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?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose error handling, potential side effects, or behaviors like unresolved paths. It only states what is returned, omitting any limitations or failure modes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, concise, and structured effectively with examples. No redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description adequately states the return value (content and frontmatter) and input format. Without an output schema, it could detail the structure of the return, but for a simple read operation it is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides only a parameter name without description. The description adds meaningful context by explaining that the parameter accepts direct paths or simple slugs, with examples, fully covering the single parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns page content and parsed YAML frontmatter, with explicit examples of accepted inputs. This is 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 Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains how to specify pages but does not indicate when to use this tool over the sibling tools (read_orientation, search_wiki). No comparative guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description fully discloses that the tool only reads files, with no side effects or destructive operations. This transparency is sufficient given no annotations are present.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, tight sentence that conveys all necessary information without any fluff. Every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description explains the tool's action and purpose but does not mention the return format or structure. Since it reads specific files, the output is implied, but a brief note about the return could enhance completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so there is nothing to explain. The description correctly omits parameter details, and the schema coverage is vacuously complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (Reads) and the specific resources (SCHEMA.md, index.md, log.md), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function. It also includes the purpose 'for instant agent orientation', which adds context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use it ('for instant agent orientation') but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools. However, since the siblings (search_wiki, get_page) serve different purposes, the usage context is clear enough.
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:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md: