Skip to main content
Glama

Marks & Signatures

Identify a mark

identify_mark
Read-onlyIdempotent

Ranks catalogue marks that match a description of a mark: visible wording or letters, symbols, outline shape, colour, how it was made, category, country and years of use. Returns pages of marks with maker, image, period and the details that matched, plus a link to the same search on Marks & Signatures.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toNoLatest year the mark may have been used.
fromNoEarliest year the mark may have been used.
typeNoHow the mark was made, such as impressed, incised, printed or painted.
queryNoText visible on the mark and details you can see, such as letters, words, numbers, a symbol, a colour or a shape. Empty browses marks of the most searched makers.
borderNoOutline shape around the mark, such as circle, oval, shield, square or diamond.
colourNoColour of the mark, such as blue, red, green, gold or black.
cursorNoOpaque nextCursor from a previous page with identical arguments and pageSize; absent on the first page.
countryNoCountry name as shown in the catalogue, such as Germany, United Kingdom or United States.
symbolsNoSymbol names to match, such as crown, anchor, lion-passant, beehive or crossed-swords.
categoryNoCatalogue category: pottery (pottery and porcelain), silver (silver hallmarks), jewelry (jewelry and gold stamps), glass, or other (other maker marks such as cast iron and tools).
pageSizeNoResults per page; default 8.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
viewYes
itemsYes
totalYes
requestYes
pageSizeYes
nextCursorYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds that results are ranked and delivered in pages with matched-detail explanations plus an external search link. It does not discuss rate limits or ordering specifics, but with an output schema and safety annotations the additional context is solid.

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?

Two sentences are front-loaded with the purpose and searchable facets, then the result shape and external link. There is no redundant or filler wording.

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 an 11-parameter optional-argument search tool with a full schema, output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers the core search surface and what users get back. The main omission is explicit sibling routing, which is more of a usage-guideline gap than a completeness failure.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 11 parameters, including cursor and pageSize. The description adds a natural-language map of searchable facets such as wording, symbols, border, colour, type, category, country, and years, but does not add syntax or constraints beyond 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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Ranks catalogue marks') and enumerates the facets it matches, making the tool's job clear. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as find_makers or get_maker_marks, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 the tool is for identifying a mark from a description, but never states when to choose it over find_makers, get_maker_marks, or get_details. No exclusions or alternative-path guidance is provided.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.