Skip to main content
Glama

summarize_article_section

Extract concise summaries from specific sections of Wikipedia articles to quickly understand targeted information without reading entire pages.

Instructions

Get a summary of a specific section of a Wikipedia article.

Returns a dictionary containing the section summary or an error.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleYes
section_titleYes
max_lengthNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • The @server.tool()-decorated handler function for 'summarize_article_section', defining the tool schema via parameters and executing the logic by calling WikipediaClient.summarize_section.
    @server.tool()
    def summarize_article_section(
        title: str,
        section_title: str,
        max_length: Annotated[int, Field(title="Max Length")] = 150,
    ) -> Dict[str, Any]:
        """
        Get a summary of a specific section of a Wikipedia article.
    
        Returns a dictionary containing the section summary or an error.
        """
        logger.info(f"Tool: Getting summary for section: {section_title} in article: {title}")
        summary = wikipedia_client.summarize_section(title, section_title, max_length=max_length)
        return {"title": title, "section_title": section_title, "summary": summary}
  • Supporting method in WikipediaClient that performs the actual section summarization: retrieves the page, recursively finds the target section, extracts and truncates text to max_length.
    def summarize_section(self, title: str, section_title: str, max_length: int = 150) -> str:
        """
        Get a summary of a specific section of a Wikipedia article.
    
        Args:
            title: The title of the Wikipedia article.
            section_title: The title of the section to summarize.
            max_length: The maximum length of the summary.
    
        Returns:
            A summary of the specified section.
        """
        try:
            page = self.wiki.page(title)
            if not page.exists():
                return f"No Wikipedia article found for '{title}'."
    
            target_section = None
    
            # Helper function to find the section
            def find_section_recursive(sections_list, target_title):
                for sec in sections_list:
                    if sec.title.lower() == target_title.lower():
                        return sec
                    # Check subsections
                    found_in_subsection = find_section_recursive(sec.sections, target_title)
                    if found_in_subsection:
                        return found_in_subsection
                return None
    
            target_section = find_section_recursive(page.sections, section_title)
    
            if not target_section or not target_section.text:
                return f"Section '{section_title}' not found or is empty in article '{title}'."
    
            summary = target_section.text[:max_length]
            return summary + "..." if len(target_section.text) > max_length else summary
    
        except Exception as e:
            logger.error(f"Error summarizing section '{section_title}' for article '{title}': {e}")
            return f"Error summarizing section '{section_title}': {str(e)}"
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'Returns a dictionary containing the section summary or an error,' which adds some context about the output format and error handling. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or other behavioral traits like whether it's read-only or has side effects. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap, warranting a 2.

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 front-loaded and concise, consisting of two sentences that directly state the purpose and output. There is no wasted language, and every sentence earns its place by providing essential information. This efficiency meets the criteria for a 5.

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 complexity (a read operation with 3 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is minimally adequate. It explains the basic purpose and output format, but lacks details on parameter usage, error conditions, or behavioral context. With an output schema, it needn't explain return values in depth, but overall completeness is limited, resulting in a 3.

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%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description does not explain the parameters 'title', 'section_title', or 'max_length' beyond what the schema provides (e.g., types and defaults). It implies parameter usage through the phrase 'specific section of a Wikipedia article,' but this is vague and does not compensate for the low coverage. With 3 parameters and no semantic details, a 2 is appropriate as it adds minimal value.

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 a summary of a specific section of a Wikipedia article.' It specifies the verb ('Get a summary'), resource ('a specific section of a Wikipedia article'), and scope ('specific section'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'get_summary' or 'summarize_article_for_query', which also involve summarization. This clarity earns a 4, as it's clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 sibling tools like 'get_summary' (for whole articles) or 'summarize_article_for_query' (for query-based summarization), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Without any usage context, it falls to a 2, as there is no guidance provided.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

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/Rudra-ravi/wikipedia-mcp'

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