Librarian MCP Server

store_document

Store documents with automatic classification, duplicate detection, and entity extraction. Organize content using metadata and analysis options.

Instructions

Store a document with intelligent classification and organization

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "content": "<content>",
      "metadata": "<metadata>"
    },
    "name": "store_document"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`content`	Yes	The document content
`options`	No
`metadata`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'intelligent classification and organization' but does not explain what side effects occur, such as whether duplicates are checked, embeddings generated, or metadata modified. The description is too vague for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence, making it concise, but it lacks structure and front-loads only the overall purpose. It is appropriately short yet sacrifices necessary detail.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool has 3 parameters (including nested objects), no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description is inadequate. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or the behavior of the optional 'intelligent' features, leaving the agent underinformed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 33% (only 'content' has a top-level description). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It does not clarify the expected format or constraints for 'content', 'options', or 'metadata'.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (store) and the resource (document). The mention of 'intelligent classification and organization' gives a sense of capabilities but lacks specificity and does not distinguish this tool from siblings like 'analyze_document' or 'organize_library'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no when-to-use or when-not-to-use statements. The description implies a general storage scenario, but context for appropriate usage is absent.

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

Deploy Server