show_recordShow a single genealogical record
Returns one specific genealogical record in JSON format (UTF-8). The response conforms to the Archive 2 All (A2A) model. Also available as XML, GEDCOM, Turtle (TTL) and N-Triples (NT) by changing the file extension in the URL. Note: version 1.1 features improved JSON/XML output and adds N-Triples and Turtle formats.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | ||
| archive | Yes | ||
| identifier | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context: JSON output with UTF-8 encoding, conformance to the A2A model, and availability of alternative formats (XML, GEDCOM, TTL, NT) by changing the file extension in the URL, plus version 1.1 improvements. This goes beyond what annotations provide.
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 four sentences with some redundancy ('Show a single' vs 'Returns one specific'). It is well-structured with a line break and includes essential format details, but could be slightly more concise by merging redundant statements.
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 tool with no output schema, the description provides key information about response format, model, and alternative formats. However, it lacks parameter explanations and does not elaborate on the A2A model, so agents may need to infer details about archive/identifier. Overall, it is fairly complete for the tool's complexity.
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%, and the description does not explain the meaning of archive, identifier, or lang. The phrase 'single genealogical record' implies identifier/archive usage, but lang is entirely unmentioned. No parameter semantics are provided, leaving the agent to infer from the schema alone.
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 explicitly states 'Show a single genealogical record' and details the return format, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_records or get_births by emphasizing a single specific record. The verb 'show' plus the resource 'single genealogical record' is specific and clear.
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 tool's purpose is clearly to fetch one record, which implies usage when a specific archive and identifier are known. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as search_records or show_transcription, so it lacks clear exclusions or named alternatives.
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.