get_births_years_agoList births that occurred a specified number of years ago
Returns a list of birth records for people born exactly the specified number of years ago from today. Note: version 1.1 uses archive_code instead of archive and includes the archive name and record URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| years | Yes | ||
| number_show | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the version 1.1 change (archive_code replacing archive) and that results include archive name and record URL, which are behavioral details beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two front-loaded sentences with no fluff. The first states the core action, and the second provides return details and a version note. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only tool with good annotations, the description covers purpose and return basics. However, it does not explain the 'number_show' parameter or mention pagination/record limits, leaving a gap for agents trying to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies 'years' as 'specified number of years ago', but completely omits explanation of 'number_show', leaving its meaning and constraints (max 100) undocumented in both schema and description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists births a specified number of years ago, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling get_births by focusing on the 'years ago' filter, and the version note adds further specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for querying births exactly N years ago but does not explicitly compare with alternatives like get_births or state when not to use this tool. No explicit exclusions or alternative references are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, e.g., browse/search/show/view transcriptions are well differentiated. The stats tools (get_event_type_stats vs get_source_type_stats vs get_record_stats) are similar in structure but each targets a unique dimension, and names make the distinction clear.
All tools use snake_case and are descriptive, but they mix verb prefixes: browse, get, match, search, show, view. This is not fully consistent, though each verb aligns with the action. Some names like get_births_years_ago are less patterned than others.
With 22 tools, the set is on the heavier side but justifiably covers diverse features: genealogical records, transcriptions, statistics, weather, census, and archives. It borders on too many, but the scope is broad enough to support them.
The domain of genealogical archives is well covered with search, show, browse, stats, and matching tools. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit user comment tools beyond stats, no direct archive detail endpoint separate from list), but core workflows are supported.