Skip to main content
Glama
ni-c

wikijs-mcp

by ni-c
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Edit a comment

update_comment
DestructiveIdempotent

Replace a comment's body with new markdown content. Since Wiki.js keeps no comment history, the previous text is permanently overwritten.

Instructions

Replaces the body of a comment. Wiki.js keeps no history for comments, so the previous text is gone.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contentYesComment body, in markdown.
comment_idYesNumeric Wiki.js id.
confirm_tokenNoToken from this tool’s previous, unconfirmed call. Omit it to receive one.

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 / comment_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

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description adds a meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: the previous text is permanently gone because no history is kept. However, it fails to disclose the confirmation workflow implied by confirm_token, where omitting the token produces an unconfirmed call that must later be confirmed; it presents the replacement as immediate and unconditional. This is a notable transparency gap.

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 short sentences, with the core action first and the most important caveat immediately after. Every word earns its place, and there is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

The description and schema together cover the basics, and an output schema exists so return values do not need to be explained. However, the unconfirmed-token flow is only hinted at in the schema and never integrated into the description, so the agent may not understand that a single call without confirm_token likely does not complete the replacement. The description alone is not fully complete for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies and the schema already documents comment_id, content, and confirm_token clearly. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, which is acceptable given full schema coverage.

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 uses the specific verb 'replaces' with a clear resource ('the body of a comment'), and it distinguishes this mutation from sibling tools like create_comment, delete_comment, or list_comments. The title 'Edit a comment' is broad, but the description narrows it precisely to body replacement.

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 phrase 'Replaces the body of a comment' clearly indicates the intended use case: modifying an existing comment's content. The added warning that Wiki.js keeps no history effectively tells the agent not to use this tool when a reversible edit is needed, providing an implicit exclusion. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context is strong enough.

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