mediawiki-mcp-server

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying pagination behavior ('continue_from: Pagination token') and default/limit values ('default 50'), though it doesn't mention rate limits or authentication requirements.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage guidelines, parameters, returns) and every sentence earns its place. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently communicates essential information without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, rich annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint), 100% schema coverage, and existence of an output schema (implied by 'RETURNS' statement), the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, parameter overview, and return values without needing to duplicate structured data.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description repeats parameter names and basic semantics but doesn't add significant value beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it mentions 'default 50' for limit while the schema says 'default 50, max 500'). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'all categories in the wiki', making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from its sibling 'mediawiki_get_category_members' by explicitly stating it's for listing categories rather than getting pages within a category.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description includes explicit 'USE WHEN' examples ('what categories exist', 'show all categories', 'list available categories') and 'NOT FOR' guidance with a named alternative ('mediawiki_get_category_members'). This provides clear context for when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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