Skip to main content
Glama
ni-c

wikijs-mcp

by ni-c
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Re-render a page

render_page
Idempotent

Force Wiki.js to regenerate a page's HTML from its source, fixing stale rendering after theme or renderer changes.

Instructions

Forces Wiki.js to regenerate one page’s HTML from its source. The fix for a page whose rendering is stale after a theme or renderer change. Changes no content and cannot lose anything.

It does, however, bump the page’s updatedAt — and update_page compares that against when you last read the page, to catch somebody else saving in between. So a render between your read and your write makes update_page refuse your own next write, saying the page changed after you read it. If that happens, call get_page again and then write; nothing was lost. Better still, render after writing rather than before.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
page_idYesNumeric Wiki.js id.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
truncatedNoPresent only when the answer was shortened to fit the budget.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.3.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / page_id / maximum
      Previous value: -9007199254740991New value: +2147483647
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.2.0
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "truncated": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "description": "Present only when the answer was shortened to fit the budget.",
+      "properties": {},
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. First observedv0.1.2

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses a crucial non-obvious side effect: rendering bumps the page's updatedAt, which can cause update_page to refuse a subsequent write based on stale-read detection. It also clarifies the safety profile ('Changes no content and cannot lose anything'), consistent with destructiveHint false, and explains recovery steps. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context annotations do not provide.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, applicability, safety, side effect, failure mode, remedy, and best-practice ordering. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the caveat is explicitly separated, making the structure easy for an agent to parse.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what the tool does, when to use it, what side effects it has, how it interacts with update_page and get_page, and how to recover from the generated conflict. There is no meaningful gap.

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 only parameter, page_id, is fully documented by the input schema with a clear 'Numeric Wiki.js id' description. The tool description does not add parameter-level detail, but with 100% schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate; nothing important about the parameter is missing.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Forces Wiki.js to regenerate one page’s HTML from its source.' It also frames the exact problem this solves — stale rendering after a theme or renderer change — which clearly distinguishes it from read, write, and bulk-rebuild sibling tools such as get_page, update_page, flush_page_cache, and rebuild_page_tree.

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?

The description states when to use the tool ('The fix for a page whose rendering is stale after a theme or renderer change') and gives explicit workflow guidance: render after writing rather than before, and if an update is refused, call get_page again and then write. It also names update_page and get_page as relevant alternatives, so an agent knows how the tool fits into a larger operation.

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