Skip to main content
Glama

wikipedia

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Get Article Summary

get_article_summary
Read-onlyIdempotent

AUTHORITATIVE summary of a Wikipedia article by exact title — typically faster + cheaper than search_wikipedia + get_article_sections + scrape. Returns the article's lead paragraph (the editorial overview), one-line description, thumbnail image, and a few related-content links. Use when you already have the canonical title (got it from search_wikipedia, or it's a well-known entity) and need the standard "what is X" prose answer. For the full section breakdown use get_article_sections.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleYesWikipedia article title (e.g., "Albert Einstein")

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleYesArticle title
extractYesArticle introduction/summary text
descriptionYesShort description or null if unavailable
content_urlsYes
thumbnail_urlYesURL to thumbnail image or null if none

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": {
+    "content_urls": {
+      "properties": {
+        "desktop": {
+          "description": "Desktop Wikipedia page URL or null",
+          "type": [
+            "string",
+            "null"
+          ]
+        },
+        "mobile": {
+          "description": "Mobile Wikipedia page URL or null",
+          "type": [
+            "string",
+            "null"
+          ]
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "desktop",
+        "mobile"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "description": {
+      "description": "Short description or null if unavailable",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "extract": {
+      "description": "Article introduction/summary text",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "thumbnail_url": {
+      "description": "URL to thumbnail image or null if none",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "title": {
+      "description": "Article title",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "title",
+    "description",
+    "extract",
+    "thumbnail_url",
+    "content_urls"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "title": "Albert Einstein"
+  },
+  {
+    "title": "Python (programming language)"
+  }
+]
  3. 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, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it emphasizes 'exact title' matching, notes performance characteristics ('faster + cheaper'), and explicitly lists the returned content. This goes beyond what annotations alone provide, though it doesn't describe error handling for missing titles.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: first states the function and performance, second lists return items, third provides usage context and a pointer to an alternative. There is zero fluff or redundancy.

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?

For a simple, one-parameter read-only tool with a rich output schema and strong annotations, the description covers what the tool does, returns, when to use it, and how it compares to alternatives. No additional context seems necessary for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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% for the title parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic nuance by emphasizing 'exact title' and 'canonical title,' clarifying the precision required. It also contextualizes the title's role in getting a 'standard prose answer.' This extra guidance justifies a score above baseline.

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 purpose: 'AUTHORITATIVE summary of a Wikipedia article by exact title' and enumerates the return values: 'lead paragraph, one-line description, thumbnail image, and a few related-content links.' It also distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_article_sections, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use when you already have the canonical title (got it from search_wikipedia, or it's a well-known entity) and need the standard 'what is X' prose answer.' It also names alternatives and exclusions: 'typically faster + cheaper than search_wikipedia + get_article_sections + scrape' and 'For the full section breakdown use get_article_sections.' This is exemplary usage guidance.

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