llm-wiki-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

ingest

Add a document to a wiki knowledge base by providing a URL or file path. The tool fetches, saves, and processes the content to extract entities and relationships into structured wiki pages.

Instructions

Ingest a document into a wiki knowledge base.

The source is fetched (URL or local path) and saved to the wiki's raw/ directory, then the llm-wiki-agent /wiki-ingest skill processes it — extracting entities, concepts, and cross-references into structured wiki pages.

Args: wiki_name: Name of the wiki to ingest into (created if it doesn't exist). source: A local file path or URL to ingest.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "wiki_name": "<wiki_name>",
      "source": "<source>"
    },
    "name": "ingest"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`wiki_name`	Yes
`source`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, description covers main behaviors: fetching source, saving, processing by agent. Mentions wiki_name creates if doesn't exist. Could add more on side effects or failure modes, but adequate.

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 well-structured paragraphs: purpose and process followed by Args list. No redundant sentences, efficient and clear.

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?

Given output schema exists, return values need not be described. Input and process are explained. Lacks details on expected output after ingestion, but still sufficient without annotations.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so description fully explains both parameters: wiki_name (target wiki, auto-created) and source (local path or URL). Adds meaning beyond schema type 'string'.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Ingest a document into a wiki knowledge base.' It details the process steps (fetch, save, process) and distinguishes from the sibling 'query' tool by focusing on ingestion.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied (add documents to wiki) but no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like 'query'. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites stated.

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

ingestA
queryA