Skip to main content
Glama
olgasafonova

mediawiki-mcp-server

by olgasafonova
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Hybrid

mediawiki_resolve_title

Read-only

Resolves wiki page titles when a page is not found due to casing or typos, returning suggested correct titles with confidence scores.

Instructions

RECOVERY tool when page not found due to case sensitivity or typos.

USE WHEN: User got "page not found" and suspects wrong capitalization or spelling. E.g., "module overview" should be "Module Overview".

NOT FOR: Finding pages about a topic (use mediawiki_search instead).

PARAMETERS:

  • title: Approximate page name (required)

  • fuzzy: Enable fuzzy matching for typos (default true)

  • max_results: Max suggestions (default 5)

RETURNS: Suggested correct page titles with confidence scores.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fuzzyNoEnable fuzzy matching for similar titles
titleYesPage title to resolve (can be inexact)
rationaleNoOptional one-sentence explanation of why you are calling this tool. Used for audit trails when present.
max_resultsNoMax suggestions to return (default 5)

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
messageYes
page_idNo
exact_matchYes
suggestionsNo
resolved_titleNo

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds that this is a fallback/recovery path used after a failure rather than a primary lookup, plus that it returns ranked suggestions with confidence scores, which explains why idempotentHint=false (fuzzy matching can vary). It does not mention rate limits or auth needs, but that gap is minor given the annotation coverage.

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?

Labeled sections (USE WHEN, NOT FOR, PARAMETERS, RETURNS) make it scannable, and the recovery framing is front-loaded in the first line. Every line carries information; there is no padding or repetition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need only the summary given. With annotations covering the safety profile, description covering selection guidance, and schema covering parameters, an agent has everything needed to decide when to call this and how.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds a non-obvious fact the schema omits: fuzzy defaults to true. It also glosses each parameter in plain language. It never mentions the rationale audit parameter, though the schema documents it, which keeps this short of 5.

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?

Opens with a specific functional framing ('RECOVERY tool when page not found due to case sensitivity or typos') that names both the action (resolve) and the triggering condition. It is immediately distinguishable from mediawiki_search and mediawiki_find_similar_pages.

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?

Explicit USE WHEN clause with a concrete example ('module overview' -> 'Module Overview') and an explicit NOT FOR clause routing topical lookups to mediawiki_search. The when/when-not/alternative triad is fully covered.

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