Hermitsh Texts

Search Letters

search_letters

Read-only

Search correspondence metadata by correspondent, place, topic, mood, date range, or Greek usage where available.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`mood`	No
`limit`	No
`place`	No
`query`	No	Optional general query over correspondent, place, topics, and mood.
`author`	No	Optional author slug or name. Cicero and Pliny currently have the richest letter data.
`end_date`	No	Optional ISO-ish upper bound.
`start_date`	No	Optional ISO-ish lower bound, e.g. -0050-01-01.
`carries_greek`	No
`correspondent`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`count`	No
`query`	No
`author`	No
`letters`	No

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description adds context beyond annotations by clarifying the tool searches 'correspondence metadata' (not full text), which is not obvious from the name alone. This is valuable, though no details on pagination or performance are given.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential function with no extraneous words. Every element earns its place.

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?

Given 9 optional parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers the main filtering dimensions but lacks details on query behavior (e.g., how 'query' interacts with other fields) or result interpretation. It is adequate but not thorough.

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?

With only 44% schema description coverage, the description compensates by listing searchable fields (correspondent, place, topic, mood, date range, Greek usage). However, it does not mention the 'limit' parameter or describe how multiple filters combine.

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 searches correspondence metadata with explicit filtering dimensions (correspondent, place, topic, mood, date range, Greek usage). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_corpus (full text) or search_greek_phrases (specific phrase search).

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 implies use for searching letter metadata but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like search_corpus or search_entities. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite guidance is provided.

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

All Hermitsh Texts tools Inspect

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

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct aspect of the corpus: general search vs. specific entity search, passage retrieval vs. work metadata, allusions vs. cross-references, etc. No two tools appear to do the same thing.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., list_authors, search_corpus, get_passage) and use snake_case throughout, making the set predictable and easy to navigate.

Tool Count4/5

With 19 tools, the server is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range, but each tool covers a necessary function for a rich text corpus API (search, retrieval, cross-referencing). No tools feel redundant or excessive.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface comprehensively covers the domain: listing authors/works, searching for passages/entities/Greek phrases/letters, retrieving full passages, work metadata, allusions, crossrefs, parallel texts, citation formatting, and AI evidence pack building. No obvious gaps are present.

Resources

Need Help?