Skip to main content
Glama
wikijs-graphql-mcp

wikijs-graphql-mcp

by vanisoul

依 ID 讀取 Wiki.js 頁面

wikijs_get_page_by_id
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a Wiki.js page's Markdown content and metadata by page ID, with optional character limits and offsets to read long pages in sections.

Instructions

依頁面 ID 讀取 Wiki.js 頁面的 Markdown 原始內容與中繼資料(ID 可由搜尋、列表或頁面樹取得)。

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "wikijs_get_page_by_id"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesWiki.js 頁面 ID
maxCharsNo單次回傳的內容字元上限,預設 100000
contentOffsetNo從內容的第幾個字元開始回傳,用於分段讀取長頁面,預設 0

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations by saying the tool returns raw Markdown content and metadata, which is especially valuable because there is no output schema.

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?

It is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. The key action, return content, and ID provenance are all packed efficiently into one line.

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 simple read tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what is returned and how to obtain the required ID. It does not mention the pagination behavior of maxChars/contentOffset, but those are fully documented in the schema, and the annotations already cover safety traits.

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 description coverage is 100%, so maxChars and contentOffset are already fully documented in the schema. The description still adds meaning for the id parameter by explaining where page IDs can be obtained from, which is not present in the 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 states a specific verb and resource: read a Wiki.js page by ID and return its raw Markdown content plus metadata. It clearly distinguishes itself from search/list/tree siblings by requiring a page ID, but it does not distinguish itself from the nearby sibling wikijs_get_page, so it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiated.

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 parenthetical that the ID can be obtained from search, list, or page tree gives implied usage context. However, the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of wikijs_get_page, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites.

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