Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
OpenProject CE MCP

OpenProject CE MCP

by jtauschl
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_wiki_page

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a wiki page's metadata—ID, title, and project—by page ID. Use it to identify or reference a page; the page body text is not available through the API.

Instructions

Get a single wiki page's metadata (id, title, project) by id.

OpenProject's REST API v3 does not expose a wiki page's body text at all -- GET /api/v3/wiki_pages/{id} returns only id/title/project, and there is no other route that returns the page content. This tool therefore cannot return wiki page text; use the OpenProject web UI to read a page's content.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
wiki_page_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
titleYes
projectYes
project_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.4.4
  2. Removedv0.4.0
  3. Changed4 schema fields changedv0.3.7
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • removedOutput schema / properties / attachments_url
      Removed value: -{
-  "anyOf": [
-    {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    {
-      "type": "null"
-    }
-  ],
-  "title": "Attachments Url"
-}
    • removedOutput schema / properties / url
      Removed value: -{
-  "title": "Url",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • changedOutput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "id",
-  "title",
-  "project_id",
-  "project",
-  "content",
-  "attachments_url",
-  "url"
-]New value: +[
+  "id",
+  "title",
+  "project_id",
+  "project",
+  "content"
+]
  4. Addedv0.3.3
  5. Removedv0.3.0
  6. First observedv0.2.2

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent safety, and the description adds genuinely new context: the REST API's GET /api/v3/wiki_pages/{id} exposes no body text and no other route does either. That prevents an agent from assuming a surprising capability gap.

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 capability statement is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the limitation explanation follows. The second paragraph is slightly repetitive (restating both that the API doesn't expose body text and that the tool cannot return text), costing some tightness.

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

Completeness5/5

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

An output schema exists, yet the description still usefully tells the agent exactly which fields come back and warns about the missing content, covering the only real ambiguity for a one-parameter read tool.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, but there is only one required parameter and the description's 'by id' aligns with wiki_page_id; the parameter's meaning is self-evident from its name. No additional format or lookup semantics are provided, so this is minimum viable.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a single wiki page's metadata') and enumerates the returned fields (id, title, project), plus explicitly scopes out body text. An agent can distinguish this from list_work_package_wiki_links or list_documents without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says when the tool applies (metadata retrieval by id) and when it does not (page content), routing the agent to the OpenProject web UI for that case. This is a rare, clearly stated alternative path.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools