Retrieves Azure DevOps wiki page content using a wiki ID and page path, enabling AI assistants to access project documentation.
Get the content of a wiki page
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| wikiId | Yes | The ID or name of the wiki | |
| pagePath | Yes | The path of the page within the wiki | |
| projectId | No | The ID or name of the project (Default: MyProject) | |
| organizationId | No | The ID or name of the organization (Default: mycompany) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.6Input schema / properties / organizationId / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "not": {}
- },
- {
- "type": "string"
- }
- ]
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
-]Input schema / properties / organizationId / typeAdded value: +[
+ "string",
+ "null"
+]Input schema / properties / projectId / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "not": {}
- },
- {
- "type": "string"
- }
- ]
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
-]Input schema / properties / projectId / typeAdded value: +[
+ "string",
+ "null"
+]v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only retrieval but does not disclose permissions, pagination, error behavior, or return format for a page that may not exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is as concise as possible for a simple lookup tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The schema fully documents parameters and there is no output schema, but the description still omits usage context relative to search_wiki and list_wiki_pages. For a simple read tool this is minimally adequate, though not rich.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: get the content of a wiki page. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate from siblings such as search_wiki or list_wiki_pages.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use conditions, and no alternatives named. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and schema alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.