mcp-mediawiki-crunchtools

List Namespaces Tool

list_namespaces_tool

Read-only

Lists all namespaces on a MediaWiki wiki so you can identify namespace IDs and labels before searching, reading, or managing pages.

Instructions

List all namespaces on the wiki.

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": "list_namespaces_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

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the description carries a lighter burden, and "all namespaces on the wiki" does add scope context (wiki-wide, unfiltered). Beyond that it adds nothing — no note on whether results are paginated, ordered, or whether the namespace set is small/fixed — which is a modest but real gap for an enumeration tool.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and with zero filler. It is on the terse side rather than wasteful, which costs it nothing on conciseness but leaves no room for the usage/behavioral detail noted above.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only enumeration tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential question of scope (all namespaces, wiki-wide). Return shape need not be explained given the output schema, so nothing critical is missing.

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 zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description correctly implies no filtering or paging arguments exist.

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?

"List all namespaces on the wiki" gives a specific verb (list) and a specific resource (namespaces), which is unmistakably distinct from siblings such as list_pages_tool, list_categories_tool, and list_files_tool. It does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling, but the resource noun alone is enough to disambiguate.

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 enumerating namespaces, and the absence of any parameters means there is little to get wrong. However, the description never states when to prefer it (e.g., before calling a namespace-scoped tool) or that it is the only namespace-listing option.

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