Skip to main content
Glama
deenesjakoruzh
leonardoca1

aesthetics-wiki-mcp

by leonardoca1
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Aesthetics Wiki MCP

PyPI version Python versions CI License: MIT

Ein MCP-Server, der es LLMs ermöglicht, Ästhetiken aus dem Aesthetics Wiki (Cottagecore, Dark Academia, Y2K, Goblincore und Tausende mehr) zu suchen, zu lesen und zu entdecken.

Unterstützt durch die MediaWiki-API. Kein API-Schlüssel erforderlich. Keine Einrichtung: Führen Sie es direkt mit uvx aus.

Warum

Das Aesthetics Wiki ist einer der reichhaltigsten offenen Kataloge für visuelle Subkulturen im Internet, aber seine Inhalte sind hinter einer Web-UI verborgen. Dieser Server verwandelt es in ein strukturiertes Werkzeug, damit ein LLM es tatsächlich nutzen kann:

  • Moodboards und visuelle Recherche — rufen Sie eine Galerie mit echten Referenzbildern für jede Ästhetik mit einem einzigen Tool-Aufruf ab.

  • Marken- und Kreativdirektion — erkunden Sie angrenzende Stile, finden Sie das richtige Schlagwort für ein Gefühl, vergleichen Sie verwandte Stile.

  • Schreiben und Worldbuilding — erhalten Sie fundiertes Vokabular (Mode, Musik, Motive) anstelle von generischen LLM-Vibes.

  • Zufall — random_aesthetic ist ein Heilmittel gegen die Angst vor dem leeren Blatt.

Related MCP server: pinterest-vision-mcp

Tools

Tool

Beschreibung

search_aesthetic(query, limit=10)

Volltextsuche im gesamten Wiki.

get_aesthetic(name, max_chars=6000)

Ruft den bereinigten Inhalt einer Seite + die URL des Hauptbildes ab.

get_aesthetic_images(name, limit=12)

Galerie mit Bild-URLs von einer Seite — perfekt für Moodboards.

list_related(name, limit=20)

Listet Ästhetiken auf, die von einer Seite verlinkt sind (Nachbarn/Verwandte).

random_aesthetic(count=1)

Wählt zufällige Ästhetiken zur Inspiration aus.

Alle Tools sind schreibgeschützt.

Beispielausgabe

// get_aesthetic(name="Cottagecore", max_chars=600)
{
  "title": "Cottagecore",
  "url": "https://aesthetics.fandom.com/wiki/Cottagecore",
  "summary": "Cottagecore is an internet aesthetic that romanticizes a simple, self-sufficient life in harmony with nature, drawing inspiration from an idealized vision of Western rural and farm life. Gaining widespread popularity in the late 2010s and early 2020s on platforms like Tumblr and TikTok, it serves as a form of gentle escapism from the pressures of modern, capitalist society...",
  "main_image": "https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/aesthetics/images/3/34/Cottagecore.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20230730224216"
}
// list_related(name="Cottagecore", limit=5)
{
  "source": "Cottagecore",
  "count": 5,
  "related": [
    { "title": "Fairycore",   "url": "https://aesthetics.fandom.com/wiki/Fairycore" },
    { "title": "Goblincore",  "url": "https://aesthetics.fandom.com/wiki/Goblincore" },
    { "title": "Grandmacore", "url": "https://aesthetics.fandom.com/wiki/Grandmacore" },
    { "title": "Farmcore",    "url": "https://aesthetics.fandom.com/wiki/Farmcore" },
    { "title": "Naturecore",  "url": "https://aesthetics.fandom.com/wiki/Naturecore" }
  ]
}

Schnellstart

Erfordert Python 3.10+ und uv. Nichts muss manuell installiert werden — uvx lädt und führt es bei Bedarf aus.

Claude Code / Claude Desktop

Fügen Sie dies zu Ihrer MCP-Konfiguration hinzu (~/.claude/settings.json, Projekt .mcp.json oder ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json unter macOS):

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "aesthetics-wiki": {
      "command": "uvx",
      "args": ["aesthetics-wiki-mcp"]
    }
  }
}

Starten Sie Ihren Client neu und die 5 Tools werden automatisch angezeigt.

Andere MCP-Clients

Jeder Client, der stdio unterstützt, funktioniert. Führen Sie einfach uvx aesthetics-wiki-mcp als Transportbefehl aus.

Manuelle Installation

uv tool install aesthetics-wiki-mcp      # or: pipx install aesthetics-wiki-mcp
aesthetics-wiki-mcp                       # starts the stdio server

Beispiel-Prompts

  • "Finde Ästhetiken, die mit Dark Academia verwandt sind, und zeige mir ein visuelles Moodboard."

  • "Gib mir 5 zufällige Ästhetiken und jeweils einen Satz zum Vibe."

  • "Was sind die Kernelemente von Cottagecore? Gibt es angrenzende Ästhetiken, die ich kennen sollte?"

  • "Vergleiche Y2K und 2014 Tumblr ästhetisch."

Entwicklung

uv sync
uv run aesthetics-wiki-mcp        # start stdio server
uv run python -m py_compile src/aesthetics_wiki_mcp/server.py

Testen Sie interaktiv mit dem MCP Inspector:

npx @modelcontextprotocol/inspector uv run aesthetics-wiki-mcp

Lizenz

MIT. Inhalte aus dem Aesthetics Wiki sind von den Mitwirkenden unter CC-BY-SA 3.0 lizenziert; dieses Projekt fungiert nur als Proxy für den Lesezugriff und gibt die Quelle in jeder Antwort-URL an.

Credits

Erstellt von Leonardo Cametti. Daten © Aesthetics Wiki Mitwirkende.

Available Tools

5 tools
get_aestheticA
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch the cleaned content of an aesthetic's wiki page.

Args: name: Page title (e.g. "Cottagecore", "Dark Academia"). Case-insensitive, underscores or spaces both work. max_chars: Soft cap on returned text length. Default 6000.

Returns: A dict with title, url, summary (cleaned markdown-like text), and main_image (URL of the lead image if available).

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
max_charsNo

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription

No output parameters

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies that content is 'cleaned' (behavioral trait), mentions case-insensitivity and underscore/space handling, and describes the return structure. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by well-structured sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action, the Args section details parameters clearly, and the Returns section explains output. No wasted words.

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 moderate complexity, rich annotations, and the presence of an output schema (implied by the Returns section), the description is complete. It covers purpose, parameters, return values, and behavioral nuances like cleaning and formatting, leaving no significant gaps for the agent.

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

Parameters5/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: 'name' is clarified as a page title with examples and formatting notes, and 'max_chars' is defined as a soft cap with a default value. This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 the specific action ('Fetch the cleaned content') and resource ('an aesthetic's wiki page'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_aesthetic_images (which likely fetches images only) or search_aesthetic (which searches rather than fetches a specific page). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage by specifying what it fetches (cleaned wiki content), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_aesthetic or list_related. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and description alone.

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

get_aesthetic_imagesA
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get image URLs from an aesthetic's wiki page — perfect for moodboards.

Args: name: Page title (e.g. "Cottagecore", "Dark Academia"). limit: Max number of images (1-50). Default 12.

Returns: A dict with source, url, and images: list of {filename, url, description_url}. Excludes tiny icons and SVG placeholders.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
limitNo

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription

No output parameters

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond what annotations provide: it specifies that the tool 'Excludes tiny icons and SVG placeholders' (filtering behavior not indicated by annotations) and mentions the return format. Annotations cover read-only, idempotent, and open-world characteristics, but the description supplements with practical implementation details.

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?

The description is perfectly structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by clearly labeled sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence earns its place by providing necessary information without redundancy or fluff.

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 moderate complexity, rich annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains what the tool does, provides parameter semantics, describes key behavioral traits (filtering exclusions), and references the return structure—all without needing to duplicate schema information.

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

Parameters5/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing clear semantics for both parameters: 'name' is explained as 'Page title (e.g. "Cottagecore", "Dark Academia")' with examples, and 'limit' as 'Max number of images (1-50). Default 12.' This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 the specific action ('Get image URLs') and resource ('from an aesthetic's wiki page'), with the phrase 'perfect for moodboards' providing practical context. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'get_aesthetic' (likely returns general info) and 'search_aesthetic' (likely searches for aesthetics) by focusing specifically on image extraction.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool ('perfect for moodboards'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among sibling tools. The agent can infer usage from the purpose, but lacks explicit guidance on tool selection scenarios.

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

random_aestheticA
Read-only

Get one or more random aesthetics from the wiki — great for inspiration.

Args: count: Number of random pages (1-10). Default 1.

Returns: A dict with aesthetics: list of {title, url}.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countNo

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription

No output parameters

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and data behavior. The description adds value by specifying the source ('wiki') and the random nature of retrieval, which isn't captured in annotations. It doesn't contradict annotations, as 'Get' aligns with read-only, and it provides useful context beyond structured data.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by structured sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence earns its place: the opening line sets context, and the bullet points efficiently document parameters and output without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects), the description is complete. It explains the purpose, parameter semantics, and return format. With annotations covering behavioral traits and an output schema implied by the Returns section, no additional details are needed for effective use.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It clearly explains the 'count' parameter: 'Number of random pages (1-10). Default 1.', adding meaning beyond the schema's basic type and title. This compensates well for the low coverage, though it doesn't detail other potential parameters if they existed.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get one or more random aesthetics from the wiki — great for inspiration.' This specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('aesthetics'), and source ('wiki'), with a helpful usage context ('inspiration'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_aesthetic' or 'search_aesthetic', which likely retrieve specific rather than random aesthetics.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for inspiration and randomness, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_aesthetic' or 'search_aesthetic'. It provides some context ('great for inspiration') but lacks clear guidance on exclusions or direct comparisons to sibling tools.

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

search_aestheticA
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search the Aesthetics Wiki for pages matching a query.

Args: query: Free-text search (e.g. "cottagecore", "dark academia", "y2k"). limit: Max number of results (1-50). Default 10.

Returns: A dict with results: list of {title, pageid, snippet, url}.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYes
limitNo

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription

No output parameters

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true (safe read), idempotentHint=true (repeatable), and openWorldHint=true (dynamic data). The description adds value by specifying the search scope ('pages matching a query') and return format details (dict with results list structure), which are not covered by annotations. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination, so a 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by structured sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value: the purpose statement, parameter explanations with examples, and return format details. There is no wasted text, and the structure enhances readability.

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 low complexity (2 parameters, simple search), rich annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), and the presence of an output schema (implied by Returns section), the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, parameters, and return values adequately without needing to explain annotations or output schema details, making it sufficient for the context.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It effectively adds meaning: it explains 'query' as free-text search with examples ('cottagecore', 'dark academia', 'y2k') and 'limit' as max results with range (1-50) and default (10), which are not in the schema. This covers both parameters well, but lacks details on query syntax or error handling, preventing a perfect 5.

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 the specific action ('Search'), target resource ('the Aesthetics Wiki for pages'), and scope ('matching a query'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_aesthetic (likely retrieves a specific page), get_aesthetic_images (likely fetches images), list_related (likely lists related pages), and random_aesthetic (likely returns a random page). The verb+resource+scope combination is precise and differentiated.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implies usage context (searching for pages based on a query) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_aesthetic (for specific pages) or random_aesthetic (for random selection). It provides clear parameter guidance (e.g., query examples, limit range) but lacks explicit when/when-not statements or named alternatives, keeping it at a 4.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 5 tool updatesv0.2.0
    • First observedget_aesthetic
    • First observedget_aesthetic_images
    • First observedlist_related
    • First observedrandom_aesthetic
    • First observedsearch_aesthetic
Deploy Server
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Scored across 5 tools

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no overlap: get_aesthetic retrieves cleaned page content, get_aesthetic_images fetches images, list_related finds linked pages, random_aesthetic provides random pages, and search_aesthetic performs free-text searches. The descriptions reinforce these unique functions, making misselection unlikely.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with 'aesthetic' as the common noun root: get_aesthetic, get_aesthetic_images, list_related, random_aesthetic, and search_aesthetic. This predictable naming scheme enhances readability and usability for agents.

Tool Count5/5

With 5 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of interacting with an aesthetics wiki. Each tool earns its place by covering distinct aspects like content retrieval, image fetching, discovery, and search, avoiding bloat or thin coverage.

Completeness4/5

The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for browsing and exploring an aesthetics wiki, including fetching content, images, related pages, random discovery, and search. A minor gap exists in lacking explicit CRUD operations (e.g., create or update pages), but this is reasonable given the wiki's likely read-only nature, and agents can still accomplish core tasks effectively.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessUnresponsive

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • mediawiki-mcp-server

    shiquda
    F
    license
    B
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    A MCP server that allows you to search and retrieve content on any wiki site using MediaWiki with LLMs 🤖. wikipedia.org, fandom.com, wiki.gg and more sites using Mediawiki are supported!
    2
    27
    -

  • BENZEMA's Personal Knowledge

    BENZEMA216
    F
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    This MCP server provides LLMs with a live, curated knowledge base of AI agent research, world models, and source-code reviews, enabling personalized and context-aware responses. Users can either connect to the hosted knowledge or build and host their own vault.
    -

  • wiki-loop-mcp

    Prometheus-AGS
    A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    B
    maintenance
    MCP server that provides tools to add to, search, and manage a wiki knowledge base, enabling AI chat tools to contribute and retrieve information from the wiki via natural language prompts.
    MIT