mcp-mediawiki-crunchtools

Get Site Info Tool

get_site_info_tool

Read-only

Retrieve MediaWiki configuration and version details to verify site setup and compatibility before searching, reading, or managing wiki content.

Instructions

Get wiki configuration and version info.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_site_info_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.3Mar 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating read, so the description needn't restate that. It adds the useful fact that the payload covers configuration and version, but says nothing about whether the result is cached, permissions-gated, or costly.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the resource (wiki configuration/version) is stated up front. Nothing to trim.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a zero-parameter, read-only info tool the description plus annotations plus output schema cover what an agent needs; only the meaning of 'configuration' is left slightly open.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes no parameters, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. Nothing in the description conflicts with the empty schema.

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 concrete verb ('Get') and resource ('wiki configuration and version info'), which distinguishes it from the other info tools in the sibling set (get_user_info_tool, get_file_info_tool). The scope is clear, though it doesn't explicitly say what 'configuration' comprises.

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 for checking wiki version or config, but there is no explicit 'use when' statement and no mention of alternatives or prerequisites. With no parameters there is little that could go wrong, which keeps this at a minimum-viable 3.

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