Skip to main content
Glama

Islam West Africa Collection (IWAC)

by io.github.fmadore

Search authority index

search_index
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search the IWAC authority index (persons, places, organisations, events, subjects) by name. Accent/case-insensitive.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoDefault 20, max 100
offsetNo
keywordYesSearch term matched against the entry title
index_typeNoExact type (accents optional), validated against: Personnes | Lieux | Organisations | Événements | Sujets | Notices d'autorité. An unrecognised value returns an error listing the valid types.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context not in annotations: accent/case-insensitive matching and the 'by name' search behavior. This supplements the safety profile without contradicting it.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the core purpose and add a useful matching behavior. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 moderate complexity (4 params, 1 required, no output schema), the description plus annotations and schema cover the essential aspects. It omits explicit pagination or return format, but these are not strictly necessary for a search tool with well-documented limit/offset parameters. The added accent/case-insensitive detail and clear scope make it sufficiently complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 75% (limit, keyword, index_type have descriptions; offset lacks one). The description adds the 'accent/case-insensitive' nuance to keyword and confirms matching by name, but does not elaborate on limit, offset, or index_type beyond schema. With high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 searches the IWAC authority index, specifying the types of entries (persons, places, organisations, events, subjects) and that it matches by name. This distinguishes it from the generic 'search' sibling and other search tools.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implies usage for looking up authority entries by name, which is clear for an index search. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the specific resource scope provides context. No exclusions are stated, so it's a strong 4.

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