Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
wiki.mcp

wiki.mcp

by ccancellieri
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

wiki_search

Search a multi-tenant Second Brain with full-text queries, returning RBAC-filtered results with configurable depth and limits for agent navigation and citation.

Instructions

Full-text FTS5 search across the Second Brain with RBAC filtering and depth projection.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "wiki_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
depthNomedium
limitNo
queryYes
principal_idNolocal_owner

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses RBAC filtering and depth projection as notable traits, but does not explain permissions, result shape, pagination, or what depth projection actually does.

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?

The definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, so it is appropriately concise. The dense jargon ('FTS5', 'RBAC') and lack of structured explanation keep it from being maximally clear.

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 four-parameter search tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema or annotations, the description is too thin. It leaves essential invocation details—depth enum semantics, limit behavior, principal_id handling, and return characteristics—undocumented.

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%, so the description must compensate. It loosely connects 'full-text' to query, 'RBAC' to principal_id, and 'depth projection' to depth, but never mentions limit and gives no enum meanings or defaults.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Full-text FTS5 search' across the 'Second Brain', plus RBAC filtering and depth projection. It does not name or distinguish itself from siblings such as wiki_navigate, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. An agent cannot tell from the text when wiki_search should be chosen over wiki_navigate, wiki_crawl_delta, or other siblings.

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