leafwiki-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

lookup_path

Resolve a slash-separated page path into existing and missing tree segments, so LeafWiki clients can check which pages exist before reading or editing.

Instructions

Resolve a path into tree segments.

Args: path: Slash-separated page path to resolve.

Returns: Existing and missing path segments.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "lookup_path"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 29, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a non-obvious behavioral trait — that the result includes both existing and missing segments — but says nothing about read-only nature, permissions, path-format validation, or error behavior for malformed paths.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded in the first line, and the Args/Returns sections are brief with no filler. The Args/Returns scaffolding is slightly formulaic but every line carries information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a single-parameter read tool with an output schema already documenting the return shape, the description covers purpose, parameter format, and result semantics adequately. The missing piece is sibling routing against ensure_path/browse_tree.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% (the only property, 'path', has just a type), so the description must compensate. It does: 'Slash-separated page path to resolve' supplies the expected format that the schema omits.

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 clear verb+resource: 'Resolve a path into tree segments', which tells an agent exactly what the tool operates on. It lacks any differentiation from near-siblings like ensure_path or browse_tree, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative. An agent must infer from the name that this is a read-only existence check as opposed to ensure_path (which presumably creates missing segments), and the description never clarifies that relationship.

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