leafwiki-mcp

by ipapadop

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

find_page_by_title

Locate LeafWiki pages by exact title match. Retrieve a page when you know its title but not its URL or location.

Instructions

Find pages by title.

Args: title: Title to match.

Returns: Title-match result returned by LeafWiki.

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": {
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "find_page_by_title"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`title`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 29, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

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, yet it says nothing about match semantics (exact vs fuzzy, case sensitivity), whether multiple or single results are returned, or ordering. The singular name 'find_page_by_title' conflicts with the plural 'Find pages by title', leaving result cardinality ambiguous.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The text is short and front-loads the purpose, but the 'Args:' and 'Returns:' boilerplate restates the schema and output schema without adding information. It is compact rather than under-specified, so it is adequate but not earning each line.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With no annotations and a name/description mismatch on cardinality, the definition omits what an agent most needs: match semantics and whether the result is a single page or a list. The existence of an output schema excuses explaining return fields, but not the matching behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single required parameter, and the description only restates it as 'title: Title to match.' beyond the schema. The matching rule that 'match' implies is never defined, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description gives a verb+resource ('Find pages by title'), which is marginally more than the tool name already conveys, but it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like search_pages or find_pages_by_property. An agent cannot tell why it would use this instead of a general search.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to any of the 29 sibling tools. The description provides no signal for choosing between find_page_by_title, search_pages, find_pages_by_property, or lookup_path.

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