github-wiki-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_wiki_pages

List all wiki pages in a GitHub repository by supplying owner, repo, and a personal access token with repo scope. Retrieve a complete list of available wiki pages.

Instructions

List all wiki pages in a GitHub repository wiki.

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": {
      "owner": "<owner>",
      "repo": "<repo>",
      "token": "<token>"
    },
    "name": "list_wiki_pages"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`repo`	Yes	GitHub repository name
`owner`	Yes	GitHub repository owner (username or organization)
`token`	Yes	GitHub personal access token with repo scope

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the operation (list all wiki pages) and hints at exhaustive results ('all'), but does not disclose return format, pagination behavior, or any edge cases. It is not contradictory, but offers only minimal behavioral context.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word is informative, making it concise and well-structured.

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 read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it clearly indicates the action and scope. However, it omits any mention of the response format (e.g., list of page titles or slugs), which would be needed for a fully self-contained description, but the simplicity of the tool keeps this from being a major gap.

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 describes all three parameters (owner, repo, token) with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, only restating that it lists wiki pages in a repository.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'all wiki pages in a GitHub repository wiki'. It distinguishes from sibling tools (write, read, append, delete) by explicitly focusing on listing all pages.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The intended use is implied by the name and description, but no when-not-to-use or alternative tools are mentioned, so it remains at an implied level.

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

Deploy Server