librarian

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation2/5
Multiple tools have unclear boundaries and overlapping purposes. get_wikipedia_page_info and get_wikipedia_page_summary both provide page information with unclear differentiation beyond 'detailed' vs 'quick summary'. get_wikipedia_page_sections and get_wikipedia_page_sections_info appear to serve nearly identical functions, with descriptions suggesting minimal distinction. This overlap will likely cause agent misselection.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a perfectly consistent verb_noun pattern with clear, descriptive names. The naming convention is uniform across all five tools, using snake_case and starting with action verbs like 'get' or 'search'. This predictability makes it easy for agents to understand and select tools.
Tool Count4/5
Five tools is a reasonable number for a Wikipedia-focused server, slightly on the lower end but well-scoped. The count feels appropriate for the domain, though it could potentially benefit from additional tools like editing or history functions. Each tool appears to serve a distinct purpose within the limited scope, making the count appropriate.
Completeness3/5
The tool surface covers basic Wikipedia retrieval operations but has notable gaps. While it provides good read capabilities (info, sections, summary, search), there's no coverage for write operations, page history, or user interactions that might be expected in a comprehensive Wikipedia interface. The surface is functional but incomplete for full Wikipedia interaction.
Average 3.2/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 2 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('Get detailed information'), but doesn't specify rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or the format of returned data (e.g., JSON structure). While it hints at output content, it lacks details on pagination, response size, or potential side effects, which is insufficient for a tool with multiple parameters and an output schema.
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 description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, making it easy to parse. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly listing key features or use cases, but overall, it's appropriately concise for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and output types, but lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral traits, and sibling differentiation. The output schema mitigates the need to explain return values, but the description doesn't provide enough context for optimal agent decision-making without additional inference.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description mentions 'content, summary, and hyperlinked words', which loosely relates to parameters like 'include_full_content' and 'include_categories', but doesn't explain their purposes, defaults, or effects. It adds minimal semantic value beyond the parameter names, failing to fully compensate for the coverage gap, though it hints at the tool's scope.
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 action ('Get detailed information') and resource ('about a specific Wikipedia page'), specifying the types of information returned ('content, summary, and hyperlinked words'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_wikipedia_page_summary' by mentioning additional details beyond just a summary. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_wikipedia_page_sections' or 'get_wikipedia_page_sections_info', which might provide overlapping or more structured content.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It doesn't mention alternatives like 'get_wikipedia_page_summary' for a brief overview or 'search_wikipedia_pages' for finding pages. There's no context on prerequisites, such as needing a valid page title, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'detailed sections information' but doesn't specify what that entails (e.g., content, metadata, structure), whether it's a read-only operation, potential rate limits, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage, parameters, and behavioral traits, which are crucial for effective tool selection and invocation in this context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and 4 parameters (1 required, 3 optional), the description adds minimal value beyond the schema. It implies parameters like 'page_title' and possibly 'language' but doesn't explain their semantics, such as format for 'section_titles' or 'section_indices', or the purpose of 'language' beyond its default. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.
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 action ('Get detailed sections information') and resource ('about a specific Wikipedia page'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_wikipedia_page_sections' or 'get_wikipedia_page_info', which likely provide related but different information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_wikipedia_page_sections' or 'get_wikipedia_page_summary'. It lacks context about specific use cases, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does 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 that the tool returns the first 5 results with information to aid selection, which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, pagination beyond the first 5, or authentication needs. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational behavior.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary details. It's front-loaded with the main action and outcome, making it easy to understand at a glance. Every word serves a purpose, earning its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (search with filtering), no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and result count but lacks details on parameters, behavioral traits, and differentiation from siblings. With output schema handling return values, the description meets a baseline but has clear gaps in context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 for undocumented parameters. It mentions searching on a 'word/topic' (hinting at the query parameter) but doesn't explain the language parameter or provide any syntax, format, or constraints for either parameter. With 2 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description adds minimal semantic value beyond basic inference.
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: searching Wikipedia pages on a word/topic and returning the first 5 results with information to help choose the most relevant one. It specifies the verb (search), resource (Wikipedia pages), and scope (first 5 results). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_wikipedia_page_info or get_wikipedia_page_summary, which appear to retrieve specific page details rather than search results.
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 searching topics and selecting relevant results, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_wikipedia_page_summary or get_wikipedia_page_info. It mentions 'help choose the most relevant one,' suggesting it's for initial discovery, but doesn't clarify exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'quick summary' and 'lighter version', hinting at performance or output brevity, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like rate limits, error handling, authentication needs, or what 'lighter' entails (e.g., truncated content vs. full metadata). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand operational constraints.
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 extremely concise with two short phrases: 'Get a quick summary of a Wikipedia page' and 'lighter version of get_wikipedia_page_info'. Every word earns its place by stating purpose and providing a key comparison, with no wasted text or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and hints at a sibling comparison, but lacks details on behavior, parameters, or output expectations. The output schema existence reduces the need to explain return values, but overall completeness is limited for effective agent use.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It doesn't mention any parameters explicitly, failing to add meaning beyond the schema. However, with 3 parameters (page_title, language, sentences) and default values provided in the schema, the baseline is 3 as the schema handles basic documentation, but the description adds no value to clarify usage or semantics.
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 a quick summary of a Wikipedia page' specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('summary of a Wikipedia page'). It distinguishes from sibling 'get_wikipedia_page_info' by calling itself a 'lighter version', though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other siblings like 'get_wikipedia_page_sections' or 'search_wikipedia_pages'.
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 provides some usage guidance by comparing to 'get_wikipedia_page_info' as a 'lighter version', implying this tool is for simpler, quicker summaries. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_wikipedia_page_sections' or 'search_wikipedia_pages', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'gets a list' and is 'useful for' large pages, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational traits, making it minimally adequate but with clear deficiencies.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and usage context. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff, making it efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, and since an output schema exists, it doesn't need to detail return values. However, it could improve by addressing parameter semantics or behavioral aspects to be fully comprehensive.
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?
The input schema has 2 parameters with 0% description coverage, meaning no parameter details are provided in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning about the parameters, such as explaining 'page_title' or 'language' usage. Since there are parameters but no compensation in the description, it meets the baseline for minimal viability without enhancing understanding beyond the schema.
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 a list of the sections on a Wikipedia Page.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('sections on a Wikipedia Page'), making the function understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_wikipedia_page_sections_info', which might offer similar or overlapping functionality, preventing a perfect score.
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 the tool: 'when a page on wikipedia is too large and the LLM can query for the available sections to it to get only necessary information.' This explains the tool's utility in handling large pages by listing sections for targeted queries. It doesn't specify when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![librarian MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mlziade/librarian/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mlziade/librarian)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![librarian MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mlziade/librarian/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mlziade/librarian)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/mlziade/librarian'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server