Skip to main content
Glama

Source Library

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

Search by Concept

search_concept
Read-onlyIdempotent

RETURNS QUOTABLE PASSAGES matched by MEANING (cosine similarity on Gemini embeddings, 768d) — paraphrases and adjacent phrasings match even with zero keyword overlap. PICK THIS when the modern term won't literally appear in historical texts — e.g. "distributed cognition" maps to passages about active intellect, art of memory, wax tablet metaphors; "social contract" maps to pre-Hobbesian discussions of consent and authority. → For exact words/distinctive terms use search_translations (cheaper, more precise); to list which BOOKS cover a topic use search_library; if the user named an author/work, get_book first (semantic search is expensive — reserve it for cross-corpus discovery). Similarity calibration: 0.70+ is a strong match, 0.55–0.70 is worth reading but verify, below 0.55 is mostly conceptual drift. Set max_per_book to diversify results across many books rather than cluster on one source. Each passage carries a snippet_type — quote only "translation" snippets, never "summary". Cross-cultural tip: for pre-modern or non-Western topics, also try source-tradition vocabulary — e.g. for seminal economy try "jing preservation" or "bindu yoga" or "istimnāʾ"; for masturbation try "mollities" (Latin) or "hastamaithuna" (Sanskrit) or "shouyin" (Chinese). The corpus is indexed via period translations that use tradition-internal terminology, so adjacent/euphemistic terms often surface material that modern English keywords miss.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
langNoISO code of the EDITION to read, e.g. "es". Default "en". Most books have only English — call get_book and read `editions`, or list_books with has_edition, to find the ones that do not. The response always states which edition it served.
limitNoMax passages (default 15, max 50)
queryYesA concept or natural-language description — full sentences are fine (e.g. "tools that extend the mind beyond the body"). Unlike search_translations, this does NOT require words that appear in the corpus.
year_toNoRestrict to books published in or before this year.
languageNoFilter by a single original language
languagesNoFilter to any of these languages, e.g. ["Sanskrit", "Arabic", "Chinese"]. Use instead of language when targeting multiple traditions.
year_fromNoRestrict to books published in or after this year (filters out modern editions and translations).
max_per_bookNoCap on passages from any single book. Useful when one book dominates the conceptual neighborhood; set to 1–2 for diverse author/work coverage.
exclude_languagesNoExclude these languages, e.g. ["Latin", "French", "German", "English"] to surface non-Western sources.

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark it as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: similarity calibration thresholds (0.70+ strong, 0.55-0.70 verify, below 0.55 drift), the instruction to only quote 'translation' snippets not 'summary', and the corpus indexing behavior via period translations. No contradictions.

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?

Though lengthy, every sentence adds value: usage alternatives, calibration thresholds, snippet-type warning, cross-cultural tips, and corpus indexing insight are all non-redundant. Structural devices like arrows and examples make it skimmable. No filler, no repetition of schema descriptions.

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 high-complexity semantic search tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers selection criteria, quality thresholds, return value characteristics (snippet_type), language/edition handling, and cross-cultural search strategies. All necessary decision context is provided for an agent to invoke the tool confidently.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema covers 100% of parameters, but the description substantially enhances their meaning. It explains the purpose and nuanced usage of max_per_book ('diversify results across many books'), clarifies the 'lang' parameter's default and edition lookup, and gives concrete query examples. It transforms formal parameter definitions into actionable strategies.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'RETURNS QUOTABLE PASSAGES matched by MEANING.' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools by naming alternatives (search_translations for exact words, search_library for books, get_book for known authors) and provides concrete examples like 'distributed cognition' mapping to historical passages.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance: 'PICK THIS when the modern term won't literally appear in historical texts.' Then it states when NOT to use: 'For exact words/distinctive terms use search_translations... to list which BOOKS cover a topic use search_library; if the user named an author/work, get_book first.' This is a model of usage differentiation.

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