Skip to main content
Glama

wikipedia_search

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search Wikipedia article titles and content by language, returning plain snippets, URLs, and hit counts with pagination to find relevant articles.

Instructions

Search Wikipedia article titles/content. language is a Wikipedia code; limit 1–50. Returns plain snippets, URLs, total hits and continuation.sroffset.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "wikipedia_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
queryYes
offsetNo
languageNoen

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare this read-only, idempotent and open-world, so the lower bar is met. The description adds real value by naming the return payload (plain snippets, URLs, total hits, continuation.sroffset), which is essential for an agent that wants to page through results.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. The telegraphic fragments ('limit 1–50') are compact but slightly at the expense of readability.

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 four-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, key constraints and the shape of the response, which is what an agent needs to call it. The main omission is guidance on pagination usage and what a language code should look like beyond 'a Wikipedia code'.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load. It clarifies that 'language' is a Wikipedia language code and reiterates the 1–50 limit, but leaves 'query' semantics and the 'offset' parameter unexplained, with 'continuation.sroffset' only hinting at pagination.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Search Wikipedia article titles/content'), which clearly sets it apart from fetch-style siblings such as wikipedia_get_article. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, but the search-versus-fetch distinction is still legible.

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?

It tells the agent what it searches over (titles/content) and gives the language and limit constraints, which implies a use for discovery. However, it never says when to prefer this over wikipedia_get_article or wikimedia_search_media, and there are no exclusion cases.

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