mcp-mediawiki-crunchtools

list_user_contributions_tool

Query a user's MediaWiki edits with optional namespace, limit, and timestamp filters. Returns contribution details including titles, timestamps, and comments.

Instructions

List edits by a user.

Args: username: Username whose contributions to list namespace: Filter by namespace (default: all) limit: Maximum results (default: 50, max: 500) from_timestamp: Start from this timestamp (ISO 8601)

Returns: List of user contributions with titles, timestamps, and comments

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`username`	Yes
`namespace`	No
`from_timestamp`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedv0.1.4Oct 1, 2026
- removedInput schema / properties / from_timestamp / description
```
Removed value: -"Start from this timestamp (ISO 8601)"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / limit / description
```
Removed value: -"Maximum results (default: 50, max: 500)"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / namespace / description
```
Removed value: -"Filter by namespace (default: all)"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / username / description
```
Removed value: -"Username whose contributions to list"
```
Changed4 schema fields changedMay 4, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / from_timestamp / description
```
Added value: +"Start from this timestamp (ISO 8601)"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / limit / description
```
Added value: +"Maximum results (default: 50, max: 500)"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / namespace / description
```
Added value: +"Filter by namespace (default: all)"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / username / description
```
Added value: +"Username whose contributions to list"
```
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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully documents the return structure (titles, timestamps, comments) and timestamp format (ISO 8601). However, it fails to disclose safety characteristics (read-only status), pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter, or error handling for invalid usernames.

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 description uses a clear Args/Returns structure that front-loads the purpose. While the docstring-style format is slightly verbose, every line earns its place by compensating for the empty schema. No redundant or filler content is present.

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?

Despite zero schema annotations and no readOnlyHint annotations, the description provides sufficient context for invocation. It documents all parameters and summarizes the output structure (noting that an output schema exists per context signals). It adequately covers the tool's functionality without significant gaps.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Given 0% schema description coverage, the Args section fully compensates by documenting all four parameters. It provides meaningful descriptions including defaults (namespace: all, limit: 50), constraints (max: 500), and format specifications (ISO 8601) that are absent from the 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?

The opening sentence 'List edits by a user' provides a clear verb (List) and resource (edits/contributions). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like list_recent_changes_tool (time-based) and get_user_info_tool (metadata), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_recent_changes_tool (for recent wiki activity) or get_page_tool (for specific page history). It lacks prerequisites or conditions that would help an agent decide between these related tools.

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