llm-wiki-mcp

search_wiki

Search wiki content for any query terms, returning matching pages with line snippets. Optionally filter results by page type.

Instructions

Full-text search across the wiki (excludes raw sources). Returns matching files with line snippets. Use find_page instead when you want one page rather than every mention.

Args: query: Search terms (case-insensitive; regex is accepted). page_type: Optional type filter. See list_types.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_wiki"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes
`page_type`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses search behavior (case-insensitive, regex accepted), excludes raw sources, and returns snippets. It does not mention pagination or result limits, but for a search tool this is adequate.

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 brief paragraphs: one for purpose and return format, one for parameter details. No redundant information; every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (2 params, 1 required), the description covers search behavior, parameter details, return type (snippets), and exclusion of raw sources. Output schema exists, so return details are not required in description. Sibling references provide alternative usage.

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 description compensates. It explains query as case-insensitive and regex-accepted, and page_type as an optional type filter with reference to list_types. This adds meaning beyond the plain schema types.

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?

The description clearly states it performs full-text search across the wiki, excluding raw sources, and returns matching files with line snippets. It distinguishes from sibling find_page by noting that find_page is for retrieving a single page rather than every mention.

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?

It explicitly mentions when to use find_page instead, and provides guidance on the optional page_type filter by referencing list_types for available filters.

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

Deploy Server