wiki.mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

wiki_verify_citation

Verifies a claim and quoted span against a source path using deterministic span checks and an NLI decision model, helping confirm citation accuracy before publishing.

Instructions

Verify a claim and quoted span against a source path using deterministic span check + NLI decision model.

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": {
      "claim_text": "<claim_text>",
      "source_path": "<source_path>",
      "quoted_span": "<quoted_span>"
    },
    "name": "wiki_verify_citation"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`claim_text`	Yes
`quoted_span`	Yes
`source_path`	Yes
`principal_id`	No	local_owner

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait: verification runs as a deterministic span check plus an NLI decision model, signalling a probabilistic verdict rather than an exact match. It omits the operation's safety profile (implied read-only), what happens on a mismatch (error vs. negative verdict), latency/cost of the NLI step, and the role of principal_id. Useful but incomplete disclosure.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and the verification method are stated immediately. 'NLI decision model' is unexplained jargon, which costs a point but does not bloat the text.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a four-parameter verification tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves important gaps: the shape of the verdict, what the two-stage check does when they disagree, and what principal_id controls. It conveys enough to attempt a call but not enough to interpret the result confidently.

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 and only partially does: it maps 'claim', 'quoted span', and 'source path' onto three of the four parameters by name. It adds no format details (e.g., is source_path a wiki page path or a filesystem path?) and leaves principal_id entirely undocumented. One of four parameters is invisible to an agent reading only this definition.

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 (verify) and the exact resources checked: a claim, a quoted span, and a source path. It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools (search, navigate, crawl, record), which do retrieval or recording rather than verification. It stops short of a 5 because it doesn't frame the outcome (verdict vs. error) that defines the tool's identity.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool to call when it has a quote and a source and wants a correctness check. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of alternatives such as confirming a source exists via wiki_search first. Minimum viable guidance.

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

Deploy Server