List wiki links from Taiga projects. Filter by project ID to view links for a specific project.
List wiki links. Filter by project.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "taiga_wiki_links_list"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | No | Project ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does 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 only states the basic listing action and filter capability, without mentioning return format, pagination, authentication needs, or read-only nature. This is a minimal disclosure that leaves the agent uncertain about side effects or output structure.
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?
The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and no unnecessary words. It is highly efficient and earns its place.
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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description conveys the essential purpose and filter capability. However, it lacks any detail about the response format or behavioral nuances, which is a gap given the absence of annotations and output schema. It is minimally complete but not richly contextual.
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 coverage is 100% (the 'project' parameter is described as 'Project ID'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that the parameter is used for filtering ('Filter by project'), which is not explicitly stated in the schema.
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 'List wiki links' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like taiga_wiki_list (which lists wiki pages) and taiga_wiki_links_get (which retrieves a single link). The added 'Filter by project' further clarifies the scope.
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?
The description implies when to use the tool (when listing wiki links) and mentions filtering by project, but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state exclusions. For example, it does not say 'use this instead of taiga_wiki_list' or note any conditions like 'only when a project is specified'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.