Create or overwrite a Markdown wiki page at a relative path; missing .md extensions are added automatically, and overwrite can be disabled to protect existing pages.
Creates or overwrites a wiki page. If the extension is missing .md is added.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Relative path of the page. | |
| content | Yes | Markdown/HTML content of the page. | |
| overwrite | No | If false, refuses to write when the page exists. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the non-obvious extension normalization ('If the extension is missing .md is added'), but says nothing about permissions, whether parent directories are created, or that the default overwrite=true silently replaces existing content.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action stated first and the normalization caveat second. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 3-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential action and one surprising side effect. It is nearly complete, with only minor gaps around error/failure behavior and directory handling.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents path, content, and the overwrite=false refusal behavior; this sets the baseline at 3. The description adds one genuinely extra rule (automatic .md extension appending) beyond the schema, but nothing further about the parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific verb pair and resource ('Creates or overwrites a wiki page'), which is clearly distinguishable from read_page and list_pages. It does not differentiate from append_note, the other write-capable sibling, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus append_note or the read-side siblings, and no prerequisites are mentioned. 'Creates or overwrites' only hints at the create-vs-update distinction that the overwrite parameter actually governs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.