@illodev/taiga-mcp

taiga_resolver_wiki

Resolve a wiki page slug to its numeric ID for a Taiga project. Provide both the project slug and wiki slug to obtain the ID needed for API calls.

Instructions

Resolve a wiki page slug to its ID.

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": {
      "project": "<project>",
      "wiki": "<wiki>"
    },
    "name": "taiga_resolver_wiki"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`wiki`	Yes	Wiki page slug
`project`	Yes	Project slug

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It states the core action (resolve slug to ID) but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or what happens when the slug is not found. The word 'resolve' implies a lookup, but side effects and error behavior remain unspecified.

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, concise sentence with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded with the action and directly states the tool's purpose, making it easy to scan.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple (two params, no output schema, no annotations), and the description conveys the fundamental purpose. However, it lacks details such as what happens when the slug is not found, whether the operation is read-only, and how the project parameter scopes the lookup. These gaps could confuse an agent in edge cases, but the basic functionality is clear.

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?

Both parameters have descriptions in the schema ('Wiki page slug' and 'Project slug'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema and does not explain how the two parameters interact (e.g., that the wiki slug is scoped to the project). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the specific verb 'Resolve' and clearly identifies the resource (wiki page slug) and the outcome (its ID). It distinguishes this tool from sibling resolver tools by specifying 'wiki', making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description implies the tool should be used when you have a wiki slug and need the corresponding ID, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this instead of alternatives like taiga_wiki_get_by_slug. There is no explicit context about the project parameter's role or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server