mediawiki-mcp-server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

mediawiki_find_orphaned_pages

Read-only

Identify pages with no incoming links to uncover undiscoverable wiki content, with optional namespace, prefix, and result limit filters.

Instructions

Find pages with no incoming links from other pages.

USE WHEN: User asks "find orphan pages", "which pages have no links", "find undiscoverable content".

PARAMETERS:

namespace: Filter by namespace (default 0 = main)
prefix: Filter by title prefix (optional)
limit: Max orphans to return (default 50)

RETURNS: List of orphaned page titles.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Max pages to return (default 50, max 200)
`prefix`	No	Only check pages starting with this prefix
`namespace`	No	Namespace to check (0=main, default). Use -1 for all namespaces.
`rationale`	No	Optional one-sentence explanation of why you are calling this tool. Used for audit trails when present.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`total_checked`	Yes
`orphaned_count`	Yes
`orphaned_pages`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.31.0May 14, 2026

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"
+}

First observedMar 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, and notably does not explain the non-idempotent hint or any scan cost/rate consideration; with annotations doing the heavy lifting, 3 is appropriate.

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?

Well-structured and front-loaded: purpose first, then USE WHEN, PARAMETERS, RETURNS. The RETURNS line is redundant given a dedicated output schema exists, which is the only meaningful waste in an otherwise tight block.

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?

For a read-only single-purpose lookup with 100% schema coverage and an output schema, the description carries enough to call correctly. What is present is sufficient; remaining gaps (scan scope, cost) are minor and partly mitigated by annotations.

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 all four parameters (including rationale) are already documented in the schema. The description's PARAMETERS block largely restates schema text (namespace default 0, limit default 50) without adding format, syntax, or edge-case meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource with the defining constraint ('pages with no incoming links from other pages'). This cleanly separates it from siblings like mediawiki_find_broken_internal_links and mediawiki_get_backlinks, so an agent can disambiguate without opening schemas.

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 'USE WHEN' block gives concrete user phrasings that select this tool, which is clear context for invocation. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or a when-not condition (e.g., distinguishing from stale/broken-link discovery), so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server