Skip to main content
Glama

Source Library

by io.github.Embassy-of-the-Free-Mind

Propose a Collection

propose_collection

Propose a themed collection of books to the Source Library team — a title, a rationale (why these books belong together and what thread connects them), and an ordered list of book ids. Get book ids from search_library / list_books / get_book. Like submit_feedback and share_findings, this goes to the team for REVIEW — it does NOT create a public collection instantly; a curator reviews and approves it. Use this when the user has identified a coherent set of books worth grouping and wants to contribute that curation back.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNo
emailNo
titleYesTitle of the proposed collection (2-200 chars)
book_idsYesOrdered list of book ids to include (1-200). Get ids from search_library / list_books / get_book.
rationaleYesWhy these books belong together and what connects them (max 5000 chars)
suggested_slugNoOptional URL slug suggestion, e.g. "renaissance-astronomy"

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Discloses important behavior beyond annotations: 'it does NOT create a public collection instantly; a curator reviews and approves it.' This adds meaning to the non-readOnly/non-destructive flags by clarifying the asynchronous review workflow. Does not mention auth or rate limits, but the review behavior is a significant disclosure.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose, then quickly covers usage and key behavior. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, id sourcing, review process, and when-to-use. No redundant or filler content.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage triggers, id sourcing, and review behavior, which is sufficient for a proposal tool. It lacks details about what happens after approval and doesn't explain optional name/email parameters, but these are minor given the lack of an output schema and the overall clarity. The tool's complexity is moderate and the description addresses the key usage questions.

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?

The schema covers 4 of 6 parameters (title, book_ids, rationale, suggested_slug), and the description reinforces required parameters and adds value by directing users to get book ids from search_library/list_books/get_book. However, the optional parameters 'name' and 'email' have no schema description and are not mentioned in the description, leaving a semantic gap. The description adds partial value but doesn't fully compensate for the uncovered parameters.

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: 'Propose a themed collection of books to the Source Library team' with specific components (title, rationale, book ids). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly comparing to submit_feedback and share_findings and noting it does not create a public collection instantly.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'Use this when the user has identified a coherent set of books worth grouping and wants to contribute that curation back.' It also tells where to get book IDs (search_library / list_books / get_book) and notes the review process, giving clear guidance on when to apply. No explicit 'when not to use' exclusions, but the context is strong.

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

All Source Library 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

A4.5/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools are organized around distinct actions—discover, read, cite, search, contribute—and the descriptions cross-reference each other heavily. The only mild ambiguities are the get_quote/get_quotes pair and the multiple passage-search variants, which overlap in result type but are scoped differently.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools use snake_case verb_noun names with predictable prefixes: get_* for retrieval, list_* for catalog enumeration, search_* for discovery, and plain verb_noun for contribution actions. Pluralization and compound nouns like get_book_text are minor variations that do not break the pattern.

Tool Count5/5

Fifteen tools is at the upper end of the ideal range, but every tool maps to a distinct step in the library workflow: discovery, reading, citation, search, editions, images, and community contributions. None feels redundant or decorative.

Completeness5/5

The surface covers the full research lifecycle: discovering books, reading them, locating canonical references, citing exact pages, searching by keyword/meaning/within a book, comparing editions, finding images, and contributing findings back. The pipeline from get_book to get_book_text to get_quote provides clear forward paths with no dead ends.

Resources