Skip to main content
Glama
olgasafonova

mediawiki-mcp-server

by olgasafonova
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Hybrid

mediawiki_check_links

Read-only

Verify external URL accessibility via HTTP requests to identify broken links. Checks up to 20 URLs, returning status codes and response times.

Instructions

Verify external URL accessibility via HTTP requests.

USE WHEN: User asks "check if these links work", "find broken URLs", "verify external links".

NOT FOR: Finding broken internal wiki links (use mediawiki_find_broken_internal_links).

PARAMETERS:

  • urls: Array of URLs to check (required, max 20)

  • timeout: Request timeout in seconds (default 10)

RETURNS: URL status codes, response times, and broken link identification.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlsYesList of URLs to check (max 20)
timeoutNoTimeout per URL in seconds (default 10, max 30)
rationaleNoOptional one-sentence explanation of why you are calling this tool. Used for audit trails when present.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultsYes
total_linksYes
valid_countYes
broken_countYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.31.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / rationale
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional one-sentence explanation of why you are calling this tool. Used for audit trails when present.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, network-touching read. The description adds the HTTP-request mechanism and the 20-URL cap, but does not explain the idempotentHint=false behavior (results can vary between calls), rate limits, or failure handling for unreachable hosts. Some added value, but not rich against the annotation baseline.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then clearly sectioned into USE WHEN / NOT FOR / PARAMETERS / RETURNS. Slight redundancy: the RETURNS block partially duplicates the existing output schema, but the structure is otherwise efficient.

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?

With annotations covering the safety profile and an output schema covering return values, the description covers routing, limits, and timeout semantics well. The only real gap is the idempotency/timeout-behavior nuance, which is minor for this tool class.

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 both urls and timeout are already documented in the schema, including the max-20 and max-30 limits. The description restates the url/timeout semantics without adding format guidance (e.g., whether URLs must be absolute, handling of duplicates), and omits the rationale parameter entirely. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Verify external URL accessibility via HTTP requests') and explicitly names the sibling it must not be confused with (mediawiki_find_broken_internal_links). An agent can distinguish it from the many other mediawiki_* tools without opening the schema.

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?

Provides explicit USE WHEN triggers quoting likely user phrasings ('check if these links work', 'find broken URLs') plus a NOT FOR clause routing to the correct alternative. Nothing is left to inference.

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