match_recordMatch a person to birth and death records
Searches the genealogical dataset by exact name and birth year and returns the Open Archives URIs of birth records, death records and registrations in which the person is mentioned.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| birthyear | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context: it searches by exact match criteria and returns specific URIs. No contradictions with annotations, and no mention of rate limits or auth, but the added detail about return content is valuable.
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 sentences, with the first providing a succinct summary and the second adding detail. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or redundant information.
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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns (Open Archives URIs). Gaps include handling multi-match cases and clarifying the 'lang' parameter, but overall the tool is sufficiently contextualized for an agent.
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 explains the 'name' and 'birthyear' parameters as search criteria, but does not explain the 'lang' parameter (enum nl/en). This partial explanation is helpful but leaves one parameter semantically undocumented, warranting a mid-range score.
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's purpose: matching a person to birth/death records by exact name and birth year, and returning Open Archives URIs. It specifies a precise verb ('match'/'searches') and resource ('genealogical dataset'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like generic search or record retrieval.
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 when to use the tool: when you have a person's exact name and birth year and want associated record URIs. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as when to use search_records instead. The context is clear but lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance.
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.