List wiki pages from a Taiga project. Filter by project ID to narrow down results.
List wiki pages. 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_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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'List wiki pages' but does not mention return format, pagination, permissions, or any side effects. Since 'list' implies a read operation, this is inferred rather than explicitly disclosed, leaving a gap in transparency.
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: 'List wiki pages. Filter by project.' Both are front-loaded, direct, and contain no filler. Every word 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?
The tool is simple, with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description explains the core function and filter, but does not describe what the response contains (e.g., an array of wiki pages). Since no output schema exists, some return-value information would strengthen completeness, making this minimally viable but not fully complete.
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% with a single optional 'project' parameter described as 'Project ID'. The description adds 'Filter by project', which reinforces the parameter's role but provides no additional syntax or format details. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given complete schema coverage.
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 clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'wiki pages', and mentions the optional filter by project. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like taiga_wiki_get (single page retrieval) and taiga_wiki_links_list, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 usage for listing wiki pages with optional project filtering, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as taiga_wiki_get or taiga_wiki_history, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is minimal but not misleading.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.