searchSearch the Europeana collection by keyword. Returns matching items with ids (pass an id to record), titles, creators, dates and image links.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (1-based, default 1). | |
| limit | No | Max results (1-100, default 20). | |
| query | Yes | Keyword(s), e.g. "rembrandt", "ceramics", "moon landing". | |
| _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",
+ "query": "rembrandt"
+ },
+ {
+ "_apiKey": "your-europeana-api-key",
+ "limit": 50,
+ "page": 1,
+ "query": "ceramics"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false) indicate safe, read-only behavior. The description adds context by listing typical return fields, complementing the annotations without contradiction.
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 concise sentence that packs essential information: target collection, action, keyword, and return fields. No unnecessary words.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of annotations and full schema, the description is adequate. It explains the purpose and output, though it could mention pagination or limit defaults.
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% with all parameters documented. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema; it sets the overall context but does not elaborate on individual parameters.
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 tool searches the Europeana collection by keyword and lists the returned fields (ids, titles, etc.). This is specific and unambiguous, distinguishing it from the listed siblings which are unrelated.
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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description only states what it does, without mentioning when not to use it or contrasting with sibling tools.
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.