leafwiki-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

browse_tree

Explore a LeafWiki page hierarchy, optionally limited to a specified depth, to retrieve a page-tree object for navigation.

Instructions

Browse the page hierarchy, optionally limited to a depth.

Args: depth: Optional maximum tree depth.

Returns: LeafWiki page-tree object.

Tool call template

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": "browse_tree"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`depth`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 29, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Browse" implies a read, but the description does not confirm read-only behavior, mention permissions/auth, or note any limits on tree size or pagination for a potentially large hierarchy.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and only one short parameter note plus a return line. The Args/Returns scaffolding is slightly boilerplate given an output schema already exists, but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a single-optional-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description is adequate but thin. Without annotations it should at least confirm the read-only nature and give some hint of when this hierarchical browse is preferred over the other navigation siblings.

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 compensate, and it does explain that depth is an optional maximum tree depth. That is meaningful but minimal; it does not clarify what happens at depth 0, negative values, or whether depth counts levels or nodes.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: "Browse the page hierarchy," which is concrete and distinguishable from write siblings like move_page or add_page. However, it offers no differentiation from read-oriented siblings such as lookup_path, get_page_links, or find_page_by_title, which also traverse page structure.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description says the depth limit is optional but never says when to use this tool versus the many sibling navigation tools (lookup_path, get_page_links, find_page_by_title). No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives are given, leaving selection entirely to inference.

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