Skip to main content
Glama

Islam West Africa Collection (IWAC)

by io.github.fmadore

Fetch IWAC item

fetch
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve the full text and metadata of one IWAC item by an id returned from search (format ':', e.g. 'articles:28576'). Returns {id, title, text, url, metadata}: text is the item's OCR / abstract / transcription / description, url is the canonical islam.zmo.de link to cite, and metadata holds the remaining fields (author, date, country, newspaper, AI sentiment, …). Categories: articles, publications, references, documents, index, audiovisual, images.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesItem id from search, e.g. 'articles:28576' or 'references:11045'

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
urlNo
textYes
titleNo
categoryYes
metadataYes
text_sourceNo
text_truncatedNo
recommended_toolNo
recommended_usageNo

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations mark it read-only and idempotent, and the description adds value by detailing the exact return shape and semantics of fields (text, url, metadata). It doesn't contradict annotations, and explains more than the raw schema.

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 a single dense sentence that efficiently packs purpose, return shape, and categories without fluff.

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?

For a simple one-param read tool, the description covers purpose, input format, output shape, and categories. It omits error handling and alternative tool selection, but with an output schema present and good annotations, it's nearly complete.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The schema already describes id with examples, and the description reinforces the format and adds a list of valid categories, providing useful context beyond the schema for correct formatting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it retrieves an IWAC item by id and describes the return payload. However, it does not explain how this generic fetch relates to the many category-specific get_* siblings, so differentiation is missing.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage after search and for all listed categories, but it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this tool over category-specific getters, nor does it list any exclusions.

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

All Islam West Africa Collection (IWAC) 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource or analytical dimension: get_* tools are specific to item categories (article, audiovisual, document, image, publication, reference) or specific analyses (cooccurrence, field distribution, lexical metrics, semantic map, sentiment distribution, similar items, temporal distribution, topic distribution). Search tools are clearly separated by subset, with generic 'search' for cross-category discovery and search_* for filtered queries. The only potential overlap between 'fetch' and get_* is resolved by 'fetch' returning a standard format while get_* tools provide category-specific extra metadata.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: fetch, get_*, list_*, search_*. The verbs are clear and the nouns precisely indicate the resource or action. There are no mixed conventions (e.g., no camelCase or inconsistent verb styles), making the naming predictable and easy to navigate.

Tool Count2/5

At 34 tools, the count is well above the 25+ threshold that the rubric flags as too many. While the server's comprehensive scope for a digital archive with multiple subsets and analytical features explains the high count, the sheer number may overwhelm agents and makes the toolset feel heavy rather than well-scoped. Some grouping or consolidation (e.g., merging distribution tools or providing a single fetch with optional detail levels) could reduce the load without losing functionality.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface provides complete coverage for the domain: every content type (articles, publications, references, documents, audiovisual, images, index) has both search and get/retrieve tools, plus listing tools for key vocabularies. Analytical tools for statistics, distributions, sentiment, topics, and similarity are fully realized. There are no obvious dead ends—users can discover, retrieve, and analyze all parts of the collection, and even gaps in the underlying data (e.g., limited OCR coverage) are explicitly surfaced via tools like get_collection_stats.

Resources