Skip to main content
Glama
cryppadotta
by cryppadotta

get_page_history

Retrieve revision history for Wizzypedia pages to track changes, view edit details, and monitor content evolution over time.

Instructions

Get revision history of a page

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleYesTitle of the page
limitNoMaximum number of revisions to return (default: 10)

Implementation Reference

  • MCP tool handler case for 'get_page_history': extracts title and limit from arguments, calls wikiClient.getPageHistory(), handles missing page, formats revisions list into JSON response.
    case "get_page_history": {
      const { title, limit = 10 } = request.params.arguments as {
        title: string;
        limit?: number;
      };
      const result = await wikiClient.getPageHistory(title, limit);
    
      const pages = result.query.pages;
      const page = pages[0];
    
      if (page.missing) {
        return {
          content: [
            {
              type: "text",
              text: JSON.stringify(
                {
                  title: page.title,
                  exists: false,
                  message: "Page does not exist"
                },
                null,
                2
              )
            }
          ]
        };
      }
    
      const revisions = page.revisions.map((rev: any) => ({
        id: rev.revid,
        timestamp: rev.timestamp,
        user: rev.user,
        comment: rev.comment
      }));
    
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: "text",
            text: JSON.stringify(
              {
                title: page.title,
                revisions
              },
              null,
              2
            )
          }
        ]
      };
    }
  • MediaWikiClient.getPageHistory(): core implementation that makes the MediaWiki API query for page revisions with specified props and limit.
    async getPageHistory(title: string, limit: number = 10): Promise<any> {
      return this.makeApiCall({
        action: "query",
        prop: "revisions",
        titles: title,
        rvprop: "timestamp|user|comment|ids",
        rvlimit: limit
      });
    }
  • Tool schema definition: specifies inputSchema with title (required string) and optional limit (number, default 10).
    const GET_PAGE_HISTORY_TOOL: Tool = {
      name: "get_page_history",
      description: "Get revision history of a page",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          title: {
            type: "string",
            description: "Title of the page"
          },
          limit: {
            type: "number",
            description: "Maximum number of revisions to return (default: 10)",
            default: 10
          }
        },
        required: ["title"]
      }
    };
  • index.ts:598-607 (registration)
    Tool registration: GET_PAGE_HISTORY_TOOL is included in the tools list returned by ListToolsRequestSchema handler.
    server.setRequestHandler(ListToolsRequestSchema, async () => ({
      tools: [
        SEARCH_PAGES_TOOL,
        READ_PAGE_TOOL,
        CREATE_PAGE_TOOL,
        UPDATE_PAGE_TOOL,
        GET_PAGE_HISTORY_TOOL,
        GET_CATEGORIES_TOOL
      ]
    }));
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but does not describe key traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, how revisions are ordered (e.g., chronological), or what the output format looks like. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information.

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?

Given the complexity of retrieving revision history (which may involve multiple revisions, ordering, and metadata), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on output structure, error handling, or behavioral traits like pagination or rate limits. With no annotations and no output schema, the description does not provide enough context for effective use.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('title' and 'limit' with a default). The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what constitutes a 'revision' or how the limit affects performance. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('revision history of a page'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'read_page' or 'search_pages' in terms of scope or output type, which prevents a perfect score.

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. For example, it does not specify if this is for auditing changes, comparing versions, or recovering content, nor does it mention prerequisites like needing the page title. Without such context, the agent lacks direction on appropriate usage scenarios.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/cryppadotta/mcp-wizzypedia'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server