leafwiki-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_property_keys

Retrieve available property keys from LeafWiki to support filtering, metadata discovery, and content organization. Filter results with a query and set a limit for focused lists.

Instructions

List available property keys.

Args: query: Optional property-key filter. limit: Maximum number of keys.

Returns: Property-key objects returned by LeafWiki.

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": "list_property_keys"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`query`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only says keys are 'returned by LeafWiki.' It does not disclose ordering, pagination behavior, default scope, or that the operation is read-only. The 'list' verb implies a safe read but nothing more is confirmed.

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 Args/Returns layout is easy to scan and appropriately short. However, the Returns line ('Property-key objects returned by LeafWiki') is circular and adds no information, and an output schema already exists to cover return shape.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the description needn't explain return values, and it covers both inputs minimally. But for a listing tool with no annotations it should say more about scope, ordering, and how limit/query interact to let an agent call it confidently.

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. It does name both parameters ('query: Optional property-key filter' and 'limit: Maximum number of keys'), adding meaning the bare schema lacks, but 'filter' is vague about matching semantics (prefix, substring, case).

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 + resource ('List available property keys'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It does not differentiate from siblings like list_tags or list_favorites, which sit in the same namespace and could plausibly be confused with it.

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 prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many sibling listing tools. The agent must infer usage context entirely on its own.

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