wiki_pages_get_metaRetrieve a Yandex Wiki page's metadata, including attributes and owner, by providing its slug path. Use it to inspect page properties before editing or auditing.
Page metadata for SLUG (attributes + owner).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Wiki page slug (its path), e.g. ``users/something/abc``. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.122.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return scope ('attributes + owner'), which is useful context, but says nothing about permissions, visibility, or what happens with malformed slugs.
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?
A single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though bordering on under-specification rather than crisp completeness.
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?
For a trivial one-parameter read operation with a full-coverage schema and read-only annotations, the description is minimally viable. It gives partial return information (attributes + owner) but no output schema exists, so the agent still does not fully know the response shape.
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% and the single 'slug' parameter is well documented in the schema itself with an example path. The description merely repeats 'SLUG' and adds no new syntax or constraint detail, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States the resource ('page metadata for SLUG') and hints at payload ('attributes + owner'), so the verb+resource is roughly clear. However, 'metadata' and 'attributes' remain ambiguous, and it does nothing to distinguish itself from close siblings like wiki_pages_get, wiki_pages_get_by_id, or wiki_pages_backlinks_list.
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 guidance on when to use this instead of wiki_pages_get or wiki_pages_get_by_id, nor any prerequisites. The agent must infer the use case purely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.