Islam West Africa Collection (IWAC)

Places on a map

get_place_distribution

Read-onlyIdempotent

Places named by a filtered set of items, joined to the index's authority records so each carries coordinates where the index has them. Use this rather than get_field_distribution when the question is geographic — where coverage clusters — and the plain ranking when it is not. Only Lieux index entries are geocoded (555 of 683); persons, organisations and events carry no coordinates and never will, and any named place with no index entry comes back under ungeocoded rather than being dropped.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`top_n`	No	Geocoded places returned (default 60, max 200)
`subset`	No	articles (default) \| publications \| references
`country`	No	Exact country name: Benin \| Burkina Faso \| Côte d'Ivoire \| Niger \| Nigeria \| Togo (accents optional)
`date_to`	No	YYYY-MM-DD (or YYYY)
`keyword`	No	ONE French concept keyword; substring over the subset's text fields
`subject`	No	Exact subject tag (pipe-aware)
`date_from`	No	YYYY-MM-DD (or YYYY)
`newspaper`	No	Newspaper (articles) or periodical/series title (publications)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note`	No
`view`	Yes
`places`	Yes
`subset`	Yes
`filters`	Yes
`ungeocoded`	No
`total_matches`	Yes
`items_by_country`	No
`items_with_place`	Yes
`ungeocoded_mentions`	No

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds concrete behavioral details: only 555 of 683 'Lieux' entries are geocoded, non-geocoded places appear under 'ungeocoded', and other entity types never carry coordinates. This significantly enriches the agent's understanding.

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 concise (3 sentences) and well-structured: first sentence states the core functionality, second provides usage guidance, third adds an important caveat. No extraneous information or repetition of schema/annotations.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, output schema), the description covers purpose, usage, and key behavioral aspects. However, it doesn't mention the default `top_n` value or max limit (though these are in the schema). The output schema exists to document return values, so this is a minor gap.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema already provides full descriptions for all 8 parameters (100% coverage). The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the generic 'filtered set of items', so it does not compensate beyond the baseline of 3.

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 clearly states the tool returns places with coordinates from authority records, and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling `get_field_distribution` for geographic questions. The verb 'get' and resource 'place distribution' are unambiguous.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance: 'Use this rather than get_field_distribution when the question is geographic... and the plain ranking when it is not.' It also clarifies that only 'Lieux' entries are geocoded, warning against using this for persons/organizations/events.

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) tools Inspect

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.

Places on a map

Input Schema

Output Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources