Skip to main content
Glama
This connector has been deprecated

A page's isnad and its chains

shamela_get_isnad
Read-onlyIdempotent

إسناد الصفحة وطرقه

The isnād chain(s) printed on one page, resolved from Shamela's narrator ids to names and death years, plus the other routes (طرق) of the same ḥadīth in the other indexed books. This is the pivot from a search hit to who transmitted it: run shamela_search_pages, then pass a (book_id, page_id) here. A page can carry several chains, and variants follows Shamela's ḥadīth key outward — counting the routes is how you judge whether a report rests on one thread (غريب) or many (مشهور). Chains run ASCENDING: first link is the Companion, last is the collector; each link heard from the one before. Only ten ḥadīth books are indexed for isnād, so most pages return no_isnad_indexed:true — and no_isnad_reason then says WHICH kind of nothing it is: 'no_marker_on_page' (the page carries no isnād marker at all, read from its own service annotations) or 'marked_but_unindexed' (it does carry one, but this book is outside the ten). A page_id the book does not have is now an error rather than a third silent nothing. Pair a narrator id from the chain with shamela_get_narrator to see whether the critics accepted them.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
book_idYesThe book id.
page_idYesThe page id.
max_variantsNoCap on returned variant routes (1-200, default 20). `variants.truncated` reports when more exist.
response_formatNoOutput format for the human-readable text. 'markdown' (default) is best for direct display; 'json' returns the same data as a single JSON code block; 'none' skips the rendered text entirely and returns a one-line pointer, leaving `structuredContent` as the whole answer. The structured data is returned in `structuredContent` regardless of this setting, so a caller that parses it should pass 'none' — the character budget is measured over BOTH channels, and the unread copy is otherwise spending most of it. Requires the 'response_format.none' capability (see shamela_brief).markdown
include_variantsNoAlso return the other routes (طرق) of the same ḥadīth from the other indexed books, matched on Shamela's ḥadīth key. This is what shows whether a report rests on one thread or many.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive), but the description adds substantial context they do not: chain direction ('ASCENDING: first link is the Companion, last is the collector'), the ten-book indexing ceiling, the two distinct no-data outcomes with literal flag values ('no_marker_on_page' vs 'marked_but_unindexed'), and the changed error behavior for a nonexistent page_id. This is behavioral disclosure well beyond structured fields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is front-loaded with the core purpose and every clause is informative, but it lands as a single dense paragraph rather than scannable segments, which makes it harder to navigate for a five-parameter tool. Slightly over-packed, though not padded.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of explaining the return surface — it names variants, no_isnad_indexed, variants.truncated, and no_isnad_reason with its enumerated values. Combined with the ordering semantics and next-step routing, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool 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%, so a 3 would be the floor, but the description adds interpretive meaning for include_variants — counting routes to judge whether a report is ghayr (غريب) or mashhūr (مشهور) — which the schema's own phrasing only gestures at. It does not add format/syntax detail beyond that, so it sits just 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?

States a specific verb+resource (resolve the isnād chain(s) on one page plus the other ṭuruq of the same ḥadīth) and clearly separates itself from nearby siblings like shamela_search_pages (the feeder step) and shamela_get_narrator (the follow-on). The opening line alone lets an agent identify the tool without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit workflow: 'run shamela_search_pages, then pass a (book_id, page_id) here,' and names a follow-on ('Pair a narrator id from the chain with shamela_get_narrator'). It also states the scoping limitation (only ten ḥadīth books indexed) so the agent knows when this tool will be useful versus when it will return nothing.

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.

Resources