recordFetch full details for one Europeana item by id — a Europeana record id (the "id" field from search, e.g. "/2021601/foo").
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | e.g. "2021601/foo". | |
| _apiKey | No | Europeana API key (auto-injected by the platform; or pass your own). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "_apiKey": "your-europeana-api-key",
+ "id": "2021601/foo"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark it as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds 'fetch full details' which is implied by the name and title, offering no additional behavioral insight beyond 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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every part earns its place by defining the tool's core purpose and parameter origin.
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 read tool with two parameters and rich annotations, the description is adequate but could specify what 'full details' includes, especially since there is no output schema.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description mentions the id format and that _apiKey is auto-injected, which adds minimal value over the schema definitions.
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 the verb 'Fetch' and resource 'full details for one Europeana item by id', specifying the input as a Europeana record id from search. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like search that list items.
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?
It provides context by explaining where to get the id ('from search'), but does not specify when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools for similar tasks.
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.
Many tools have overlapping purposes, e.g., three versions of ask_pipeworx for similar tasks, and several research/analysis tools (bet_research, deep_research, entity_profile) with unclear boundaries. The mix of Europeana-specific tools with a broad research toolkit creates confusion.
Tool names are inconsistent, mixing snake_case (ai_visibility_check, ask_pipeworx), verb_noun patterns (compare_entities, resolve_entity), and short names (search, record, forget). No clear naming convention is followed throughout the set.
33 tools is excessive for a Europeana-focused server, as only 3 tools (search, record, search_within) are directly related to Europeana. The rest are a broad, unrelated toolkit, making the server feel like a kitchen sink rather than a cohesive collection.
The Europeana-specific tool surface is severely incomplete, lacking browse collections, advanced filters, or entity linking. The inclusion of many unrelated tools does not compensate for the gaps in the core domain, resulting in a poorly scoped offering.