Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
wikimedia

wikimedia

by RapidMCP
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Remote

get_page

Retrieve a Wikimedia page's full content, title, URL, and last modified date by specifying the page title and optionally the project (e.g., Wikipedia) and language.

Instructions

Get Wikimedia page content, title, URL and last modified date. Parameters: title (required), project (e.g., 'wikipedia'), language (e.g., 'en')

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": {
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "get_page"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleYes
projectNowikipedia
languageNoen

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what data is returned (content, title, URL, last modified) but omits critical behavioral aspects such as error handling for missing pages, idempotency, authentication requirements, or rate limits.

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 sentences that front-load the purpose and then list parameters. Every word adds value; there is no fluff or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the lack of an output schema and annotations, the description should provide more details about the return structure, error conditions, and page retrieval behavior. It only vaguely mentions what is returned without specifying format or edge cases.

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. It lists all three parameters with examples (e.g., 'wikipedia' for project, 'en' for language), adding meaning beyond the schema's bare types. However, it does not explain valid values or format requirements for parameters like project or language.

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's purpose: 'Get Wikimedia page content, title, URL and last modified date.' It specifies the verb and resource, making the function obvious. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_featured' or 'search_titles', which share a similar domain.

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. The description lacks context about specific use cases, prerequisites, or situations where other tools would be more appropriate.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools