Skip to main content
Glama

wikipedia

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Get Article Sections

get_article_sections
Read-onlyIdempotent

Section outline of a Wikipedia article by title — the table-of-contents. Returns all headings + hierarchy (H2, H3, etc.) without the prose. Use when the article is long (history, science topics, biographies) and you want to navigate to a specific section vs reading the entire summary. Chain with get_article_summary for the lead text. Cheap, structural-only.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleYesWikipedia article title (e.g., "World War II")

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleYesArticle title
pageidYesWikipedia page ID
sectionsYesArray of section headings with hierarchy

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "pageid": {
+      "description": "Wikipedia page ID",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "sections": {
+      "description": "Array of section headings with hierarchy",
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "anchor": {
+            "description": "URL anchor/fragment for section",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "level": {
+            "description": "Heading level (1-6)",
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "number": {
+            "description": "Section numbering (e.g., '1.2.3')",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "title": {
+            "description": "Section heading text (HTML-stripped)",
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "title",
+          "level",
+          "number",
+          "anchor"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "title": {
+      "description": "Article title",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "title",
+    "pageid",
+    "sections"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "title": "World War II"
+  },
+  {
+    "title": "Photosynthesis"
+  }
+]
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. Description adds concrete behavioral context: 'Cheap, structural-only' and clarifies that it returns headings without prose, which is useful beyond the structured fields. No contradiction found.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose in the first clause, then follows with targeted usage guidance, chaining recommendation, and a performance note. Every sentence earns its place—minimal and efficient.

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?

Given the single-parameter schema, rich annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, performance, and chaining. It is appropriately complete for a simple, structural-only tool without over-explaining.

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 100% with a clear explanation and example for the title parameter. Description only restates 'by title', adding no meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: returns the section outline/table-of-contents of a Wikipedia article. Clearly distinguishes from siblings with 'without the prose' and references get_article_summary for lead text, establishing a unique scope.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicit when-to-use: long articles needing navigation to a specific section, directly contrasting with 'entire summary'. Names get_article_summary as a chaining alternative. However, it does not specify when not to use or mention other siblings like get_article_extract, making guidance clear but not exhaustive.

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

All wikipedia toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The server is named 'wikipedia' but most tools are unrelated Pipeworx/Polymarket tools, so an agent asked to use Wikipedia tools will face a large misleading option set. Even within families there is blurriness: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research overlap, and the five polymarket_* tools have closely related purposes that require reading very long descriptions to disambiguate.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are mixed: some tools use clean verb_noun patterns (search_wikipedia, resolve_entity, validate_claim) while others use product prefixes (ask_pipeworx, pipeworx_trending, polymarket_edges) or noun-phrase names (entity_profile, recent_changes, bet_research). There is no single consistent pattern across the set.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is already heavy, but it is especially inappropriate for a server named 'wikipedia' — only a handful are actually Wikipedia tools, while the rest belong to unrelated domains (Pipeworx data, Polymarket betting, memory, subscriptions, npm scanning). The count reflects a kitchen-sink scope rather than a focused purpose.

Completeness3/5

The Wikipedia-reading subset (search, summary, sections, extract, random) is decent but lacks editing, category, or link features. The broader Pipeworx/Polymarket surface is quite comprehensive, so completeness depends entirely on which implicit domain you judge it against; as a 'wikipedia' server it is incomplete, and as a unified data platform the scope is still incoherent.

Resources