Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
wiki.mcp

wiki.mcp

by ccancellieri
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

wiki_crawl_delta

Crawl a directory using a deterministic parallel Merkle-tree process and update only modified branches, keeping indexed wiki content current.

Instructions

Run the deterministic parallel Merkle-tree crawler on a directory, updating only modified branches.

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": {
      "root_dir": "<root_dir>"
    },
    "name": "wiki_crawl_delta"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
root_dirYes
principal_idNolocal_owner

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden. It discloses determinism, parallelism, and incremental branch updates, but omits permissions, side effects, what is mutated, failure behavior, and what principal_id affects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, so it is appropriately sized. The technical jargon 'deterministic parallel Merkle-tree' is somewhat dense but still part of the behavior disclosure.

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?

For a mutation/crawl tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It gives the core action and incremental trait but leaves important operational details missing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain both parameters. 'On a directory' loosely maps to root_dir, but principal_id and the default local_owner are never mentioned, leaving parameter meaning largely undocumented.

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 uses the specific action 'Run ... crawler on a directory' and explains the delta behavior as 'updating only modified branches,' so it says what the tool does. It does not explicitly contrast with the wiki search/navigate/verify siblings, but the crawl-and-update scope is distinct enough for selection.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The phrase 'updating only modified branches' implies an incremental crawl use case, but it does not say when an agent should choose this over other wiki tools.

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