mcp-server-ispace-wiki

Official

by ispace-top

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

wiki_add_comment

Add comments to wiki documents with @mentions and reply capability.

Instructions

在文档下添加评论，支持 @提及用户。parent_id > 0 表示回复某评论。

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": {
      "doc_id": "<doc_id>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "wiki_add_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`doc_id`	Yes
`content`	Yes
`parent_id`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Description only covers basic function and reply functionality. Lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or side effects. Annotations absent, so description should provide more behavioral context.

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?

Two short sentences, no redundancy. Efficient and front-loaded.

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?

Minimal but covers core action and reply. Lacks contextual info like when to use vs inline comment, output expectations despite output schema existing. Adequate for a simple tool but not fully complete.

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?

Only parent_id is explained (reply when >0). doc_id and content rely on schema titles, which are minimal. Schema coverage is 0%, so description should compensate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Clearly states the tool adds a comment under a document and supports @mentions and replies via parent_id. Distinguishes from siblings like wiki_add_inline_comment by focusing on general comments.

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?

No guidance on when to use this vs alternatives (e.g., inline comments). No mention of prerequisites or context.

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