Fetch a Wikimedia Commons file's license, author, description, categories, and original size using its title, with or without the File: prefix.
Get one Commons file's licence, author, description, categories and original size.
Args: title: The file name, with or without the "File:" prefix.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the returned fields, which implicitly signals a non-mutating metadata read, but it says nothing about authentication, rate limits, failure modes (e.g. missing file), or whether the lookup is exact-match or normalized.
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?
One front-loaded sentence listing the returned fields, followed by a compact Args block for the sole parameter. Nothing is padded and the essential information comes first.
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?
An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return structure, yet it usefully previews the returned fields and covers the only parameter's format. The main remaining gap is the absence of any error/empty-result behavior for a nonexistent title.
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 0%, but with a single parameter the description supplies the key semantic detail the schema lacks: the title is a file name that may be given with or without the 'File:' prefix. That normalization rule is exactly the kind of information an agent needs and would not get from the bare string type.
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 (Get) and resource (one Commons file) and enumerates exactly what is returned: licence, author, description, categories, original size. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like commons_search and commons_category_members, which operate on collections rather than a single file.
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?
Usage is implied by the singular 'one Commons file', which suggests it is the detail lookup paired with commons_search, but no sibling is named and there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.