leafwiki-mcp

by ipapadop

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

suggest_slug

Generate a unique slug from a title, checking parent and current pages to avoid conflicts in LeafWiki.

Instructions

Suggest an available slug for a title.

Args: title: Title from which to derive a slug. parent_id: Parent used to determine availability. current_id: Existing page to exclude from conflicts.

Returns: Slug suggestion 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": "suggest_slug"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`title`	Yes
`parent_id`	No
`current_id`	No

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that availability depends on parent_id and that current_id excludes an existing page from conflict detection, which is real behavioral context, but it never states that this is a read-only suggestion with no side effects (i.e., that the slug is not reserved).

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 one-line summary followed by organized Args/Returns blocks. Slightly verbose in the docstring format but no redundant or wasted sentences.

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 explaining return values in prose is generous rather than required, and purpose plus all three parameters are covered. The main gap is the missing when-to-use routing relative to the page-creation siblings.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and it largely does, giving each of the three parameters a purpose: title as the derivation source, parent_id to scope availability, current_id to exclude self-conflicts. It omits id format expectations and the meaning of the empty-string defaults.

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 ('Suggest an available slug for a title') with a clear scope, and the concept is distinct from page-mutation siblings like add_page/edit_page. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from siblings, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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: nothing says this is a pre-flight helper for add_page/edit_page, nor when parent_id or current_id should be supplied. The Args section describes what parameters mean, not when to invoke the tool.

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