view-collectionView a collection from the NUL Digital Collections in an interactive viewer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| collection_id | Yes | The ID of the collection to view |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| iiifContentUrl | Yes | A URL to a IIIF manifest or collection |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "iiifContentUrl": {
+ "description": "A URL to a IIIF manifest or collection",
+ "format": "uri",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "iiifContentUrl"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds only 'interactive viewer' as behavioral context, which hints at the presentation mode but does not explain output form or any viewer prerequisites. This is acceptable given the strong annotations.
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?
A single sentence with no filler or redundancy. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and every word contributes to the meaning.
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 one-parameter, read-only tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. Missing guidance about using list-collections to find a collection_id is a minor gap, but the tool is simple enough that an agent can infer the workflow from sibling names.
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 100%: collection_id is already described as 'The ID of the collection to view.' The description adds domain context ('NUL Digital Collections') but no additional parameter-level semantics, constraints, or examples.
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 clearly states a specific action ('View') and resource ('a collection from NUL Digital Collections'), and 'interactive viewer' hints at a distinct mode from sibling tools like list-collections. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling view tools, but the resource type makes the purpose unambiguous.
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?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not say when to use this tool instead of list-collections, get-work, or view-work, nor does it mention how an agent should obtain a collection_id. Sibling tools are not referenced at all.
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 clear boundaries: search and similarity-search are distinct query modes, and view-* tools are explicitly for interactive viewing while get-work and list-collections return metadata. However, get-work vs view-work and list-collections vs view-collection could cause mild confusion, and view-search-results refers to a 'search-works' tool that is actually named 'search'.
Tool names mostly follow a lowercase hyphenated verb-object pattern like get-work, list-collections, and view-work. However, 'search' lacks an object, 'similarity-search' is formatted as a compound noun rather than a verb phrase, and the description for view-search-results references a non-existent 'search-works' tool name.
Eight tools is a well-scoped set for a digital collections API. Each tool serves a distinct function covering search, retrieval, similarity, and interactive viewing without feeling bloated or sparse.
The tool surface covers the core read-only workflows: searching, similarity matching, retrieving work metadata, listing collections, and viewing results interactively. A minor gap is the lack of a direct get-collection metadata tool separate from list-collections, but agents can likely work around this.