Search Internet Archive items by query to find collections, media types, and metadata, with pagination, sorting, and field selection. No credentials required.
Search archive.org items. Example query: 'collection:nasa AND mediatype:image'. No credentials required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| rows | No | ||
| sort | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| fields | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose that no credentials are required, which is genuinely useful. It says nothing about pagination defaults, result caps, rate limits, or sort behavior, which an agent must guess from the bare schema.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then a concrete query example, then the auth note. Nothing is padded or redundant.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but with 0% schema description coverage the description should compensate for the four undocumented parameters and does not. For a 5-parameter search tool, this is notably incomplete.
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 0% across 5 parameters, and the description only clarifies the required query via a Solr-style example ('collection:nasa AND mediatype:image'). The page, rows, sort, and fields parameters receive no explanation anywhere.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Search archive.org items'), which is clearly distinct from the sibling ia_get_item_metadata. However, it never explicitly names the sibling or the boundary between searching and fetching metadata.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus ia_get_item_metadata, nor any conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites beyond the credential note. The example query demonstrates syntax but not tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.