Skip to main content
Glama

Islam West Africa Collection (IWAC)

by io.github.fmadore

Search publications

search_publications
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search Islamic publications (periodical issues, books). keyword matches title, subject, table of contents, and full OCR text (TOC hits come back as matching_toc_entries); use French concept keywords regardless of the user's report language. Filter by newspaper/series, subject, country and year. Use list_periodicals to discover series titles, and get_publication_fulltext for keyword excerpts from a single issue.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoDefault 20, max 100
offsetNo
countryNoExact country name: Benin | Burkina Faso | Côte d'Ivoire | Niger | Togo (accents optional)
date_toNoLatest year, YYYY
keywordNoFrench concept keyword; substring match on title + subject + table of contents + OCR (accent-insensitive)
subjectNoSubject tag (~87% of issues are tagged)
date_fromNoEarliest year, YYYY
newspaperNoPeriodical/series title (see list_periodicals)
hijri_yearNoIslamic (Umm al-Qura) year, e.g. 1445
hijri_monthNoIslamic lunar month: 1-12, or a name (Ramadan, Chaabane, Chawwal, Dhu al-Hijja). Matches only issues with a full YYYY-MM-DD date — ~83% of them.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety. The description adds non-obvious behavioral details beyond annotations: keyword matches full OCR text, TOC hits are returned as matching_toc_entries, and French concept keywords must be used regardless of the user's language. No contradiction exists.

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 concise three-sentence structure: purpose, keyword matching behavior, and filter/related-tool guidance. Every sentence carries useful information without redundancy, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description delivers essential context: what the tool does, how keyword matching works, which filters are available, and how to leverage adjacent tools. It does not detail the full response structure, but mentions the key TOC field, making it sufficiently complete for agent decision-making.

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?

With 90% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by explicitly noting that TOC hits come back as matching_toc_entries and emphasizing the French keyword requirement, which goes beyond what the schema states. This meaningful additional context justifies a 4.

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's purpose: search Islamic publications, specifically periodical issues and books. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_articles (individual articles) and search_documents. It also describes the specific matching behavior across title, subject, TOC, and full text.

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 provides clear context on how to use the tool (filter by newspaper/series, subject, country, year) and names related tools for complementary tasks (list_periodicals for series titles, get_publication_fulltext for excerpts). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus other search variants, so it falls short of a 5.

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