Retrieve the full content of a wiki article by its slug; include a PIN to access private articles and support cross-referenced engineering knowledge.
Read the full content of a wiki article by its slug (e.g. "concepts/tool-use"). Private articles require a pin.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pin | No | PIN required for private articles. Must match PRIVATE_PIN env var. | |
| slug | Yes | Article slug relative to wiki/ (e.g. "concepts/tool-use") |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one meaningful prerequisite: private articles require a pin. However, it says nothing about behavior on a missing slug, whether reads are side-effect-free, or what content is returned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence pairing the action with its key and a concrete example, with the pin caveat appended. Nothing is wasted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-by-key tool with a fully documented two-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, key format, and the one access precondition. Only edge-case behavior is left unstated.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both slug and pin are already documented in the schema, including the PIN env-var match requirement. The description's slug example and pin mention restate rather than extend the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('Read the full content of a wiki article') plus the lookup key (slug), which cleanly separates it from search_wiki/list_articles/read_index. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the verb+resource is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No statement of when to use this versus search_wiki, query_wiki, or read_index, and no mention of failure modes. The only usage-adjacent note is the pin prerequisite for private articles.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.