Skip to main content
Glama

Anachronism Guard

archive_cultural_anachronism
Read-only

Checks colour entries for anachronism risk by verifying primary source dates against a target period and identifying modern archives. Returns risk level, period relevance score, and safe phrasing to ensure accurate historical context.

Instructions

Check a list of colour entries for anachronism risk. Detects whether the primary source date falls outside the requested period, whether the archive is a known modern source (RacingSilks, FootballStrips), and returns a period_relevance score and safe phrasing. Essential for historical documents: prevents a 2011 Jockey Club racing silk registration being presented as Georgian evidence. Returns anachronism_risk (none/low/medium/elevated/high), period_relevance score 0-1, safe_phrasing, and unsafe_phrasing for each entry.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
entriesYesColour entries to check
target_periodNoPeriod description e.g. 'Georgian England 1714-1830'
period_startNoStart year e.g. 1714
period_endNoEnd year e.g. 1830

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okNo
resultNo
errorNo
Behavior4/5

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

Discloses detection logic and returns risk scores, safe phrasing; consistent with readOnlyHint annotation. Adds context beyond what annotations provide.

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 sentences, front-loaded with action, then outputs and example. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

All required aspects covered: purpose, inputs, outputs, usage context, and safety. No gaps given schema and annotation richness.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%; description adds logical meaning by explaining how parameters relate to anachronism detection, enhancing understanding beyond schema.

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 checks colour entries for anachronism risk, detecting source date mismatches and modern archives, with a concrete example differentiating it from sibling 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 when to use (historical documents) via an example, but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or specify when not to use.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/DigbyO/colour-memory-api'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server