leafwiki-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

search_pages

Search LeafWiki pages by full-text query and filter by tags to return matching excerpts and tag facets for quick content discovery.

Instructions

Search pages by text and tags, returning excerpts and tag facets.

Args: query: Full-text search query. tags: Optional tags used to filter results. offset: Zero-based result offset. limit: Maximum number of results.

Returns: Search result object 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": "search_pages"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it partially delivers: it discloses that results include excerpts and tag facets and that a 'Search result object' is returned. It says nothing about permissions, result limits beyond the limit param, ordering, or error behavior, leaving notable gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The first sentence front-loads purpose and output, followed by tight Args and Returns blocks. Every line earns its place with no filler or repetition of the schema titles.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, yet the description covers all four parameters and the return gist. For a no-annotation search tool with 0% schema coverage it is reasonably complete, missing only filtering/pagination nuance.

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%, so the description must supply meaning and it does document all four params: full-text query, optional tag filter, zero-based offset, and max result count. That is solid compensation, though it adds no format/syntax examples for the query string.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Search pages') plus the mechanism ('by text and tags') and what it yields ('excerpts and tag facets'). This clearly separates it from title- or property-based siblings, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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 stated conditions for choosing this over find_page_by_title, find_pages_by_property, or browse_tree, and no exclusions. Usage is only implied by the 'search by text and tags' phrasing.

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