Skip to main content
Glama
shiquda

mediawiki-mcp-server

by shiquda
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: get_page retrieves specific page content by title, while search finds pages matching a query. There is no overlap in functionality, making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool based on the task.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_page and search, where search implies 'search_pages'). The naming is simple, predictable, and uses snake_case uniformly, providing clear readability.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for a MediaWiki domain, lacking essential operations like creating, updating, or deleting pages. While get_page and search cover basic retrieval, the scope is incomplete, making it borderline too few for practical use.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool surface is severely incomplete for a MediaWiki server, missing core CRUD operations (e.g., create_page, update_page, delete_page) and other common actions like listing categories or handling user interactions. This will likely cause agent failures in broader workflows.

  • Average 3.2/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • Last stable release on
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does (retrieves page content) but lacks critical behavioral details such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation (though implied by 'Get'). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand operational constraints.

    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?

    The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by labeled sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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

    Completeness3/5

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

    For a simple read operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basics (purpose, parameter hint, return type). However, without annotations or output schema, it lacks details on response format (e.g., structured data vs. raw text), error cases, or prerequisites, leaving some contextual gaps for reliable agent use.

    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?

    The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'title' by explaining that it 'can be found in title field of the search results,' which clarifies its source and usage. Since schema description coverage is 0% and there's only one parameter, this compensates well, though it doesn't detail format constraints like case sensitivity or special characters.

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

    Purpose4/5

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

    The description clearly states the action ('Get a page') and resource ('from mediawiki.org'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'search' tool, which appears to be a related but distinct operation for finding pages rather than retrieving specific content.

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

    Usage Guidelines2/5

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

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like the 'search' sibling. It mentions that titles 'can be found in title field of the search results,' which hints at a workflow but doesn't explicitly state when to choose get_page over search or other potential tools.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the search returns a list of pages, which is helpful. However, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like pagination, sorting, relevance ranking, error conditions, or performance characteristics. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

    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?

    The description is appropriately concise with three clear sections: purpose statement, usage advice, parameter documentation, and return value. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose. The structure with labeled 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections is helpful, though the formatting could be cleaner.

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

    Completeness3/5

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

    For a search tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides basic but incomplete coverage. It explains what the tool does and documents parameters, but lacks details about the search algorithm, result format beyond 'list of pages,' error handling, or performance considerations. The absence of output schema means the description should ideally explain the return structure more thoroughly.

    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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description explicitly documents both parameters: 'query: The query to search for' and 'limit: The number of results to return.' This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't provide format guidance for the query or explain the default limit value (5 from schema).

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

    Purpose4/5

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

    The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search for a wiki page.' It specifies the resource (wiki page) and action (search). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_page' - we can infer search returns multiple results while get_page likely retrieves a specific page, but this distinction isn't stated.

    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?

    The description provides some usage guidance: 'The shorter the request, the better, preferably containing only the main term to be searched.' This offers practical advice but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus the 'get_page' sibling. There's implied context that this is for finding pages rather than retrieving specific ones, but no explicit alternative guidance.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

mediawiki-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mediawiki-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/shiquda/mediawiki-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server