The historia-mcp server provides access to a demo dataset of Kenya and East African historical archives through 6 tools:
kenya_history_timeline: Retrieve historical events from 3000 BCE to 2022, with optional filtering by start and end year.
independence_leaders: Get information on key independence movement figures like Jomo Kenyatta, Oginga Odinga, Tom Mboya, Dedan Kimathi, and Mekatilili wa Menza.
cultural_heritage_sites: Browse UNESCO and national heritage sites across Kenya, optionally filtered by region.
ethnic_groups_guide: Access details on Kenya's 44+ ethnic groups covering demographics, language, and culture, optionally filtered by a specific group.
oral_history_resources: Discover oral history archives and preservation resources, including the Kenya National Archives and National Museums of Kenya.
historical_documents: Find access points for constitutions, commission reports, and colonial records, optionally filtered by document type.
Note: All data is for demonstration purposes only and is not suitable for operational decisions.
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@historia-mcp list Kenya's independence leaders"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
Compatible with claude-sonnet-5 (released 2026-06-30) — Anthropic's most agentic
Sonnet yet. Runs multi-step tool chains end-to-end without stopping short.
Install: pip install historia-mcp · Use with any MCP client.
Kenya and East Africa historical archives via MCP — timeline, leaders, heritage sites, oral history.
1st world equivalent: Wikipedia + Britannica + National Archives
pip install historia-mcpRelated MCP server: bima-mcp
Tool | Description |
| Kenya historical events from 3000 BCE to 2022 |
| Jomo Kenyatta, Oginga Odinga, Tom Mboya, Dedan Kimathi, Mekatilili wa Menza |
| UNESCO and national heritage sites across Kenya |
| Kenya's 44+ ethnic groups — demographics, language, culture |
| Kenya National Archives, NMK, international digital archives |
| Access points for Kenya constitutions, commission reports, colonial records |
MIT © Gabriel Mahia | contact@aikungfu.dev
This MCP server is one of 32 tools in the Kenya coordination infrastructure.
Connect it to africa-coord-bus —
the coordination event bus that routes signals between domains automatically.
pip install africa-coord-busAll 32 servers: pypi.org/user/gmahia Live demo: coord-cascade-demo
MIT licensed. Feedback via GitHub Issues only — pull requests are not accepted. Demo data is labeled DEMO and is not suitable for operational decisions. Full policy: docs/architecture/IP_POLICY.md. Security reports: see SECURITY.md.
Install & run: pip install reli-cli && reli list — 33 MCP servers on the official MCP Registry under io.github.gabrielmahia
Evaluate any model on Swahili agent tasks: kipimo · dataset · leaderboard
Coordinate across servers: africa-coord-bus — offline-first event bus with a built-in Kenya routing table
Datasets: huggingface.co/gmahia · Docs hub: nairobi-stack
Model-agnostic by design: closed APIs, open-weight models, and small distilled models are all first-class citizens.
Kenya UNESCO and national heritage sites. DEMO.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| region | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only includes 'DEMO', which is ambiguous and fails to indicate side effects, permissions, or safety profile.
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 short but not concise because it lacks essential information. 'DEMO' adds no value, making it under-informative rather than efficient.
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?
Despite having a single parameter and an output schema, the description provides almost no context. The 'DEMO' label suggests incompleteness, leaving agents unable to understand the tool's function.
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%, and the description does not explain the 'region' parameter. The schema shows it is optional with anyOf, but no meaning is added.
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 'Kenya UNESCO and national heritage sites. DEMO.' is a noun phrase that restates the tool name without specifying an action (e.g., list, retrieve). It vaguely indicates the domain but fails to convey what the tool does.
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 is given on when to use this tool or how it relates to siblings. The description lacks any context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Kenya major ethnic groups, cultures, and communities. DEMO.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| group | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states it is a 'DEMO', implying limited or non-production data, but does not explain read-only behavior, return format, or any constraints beyond the parameter.
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 brief, but lacks necessary detail. While it is front-loaded, it omits key information about the parameter and usage, making it underspecified rather than efficiently concise.
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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values, but it fails to explain what the tool does with the parameter or how it ties into the sibling context. A demo tool still requires clarity on its functionality.
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?
The schema provides zero description for the 'group' parameter, and the tool description offers no explanation of its purpose, expected values, or how it affects results. This leaves the agent completely uninformed.
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 identifies the tool as a guide to Kenya's major ethnic groups, cultures, and communities. It distinguishes from sibling tools like cultural_heritage_sites, which focus on locations rather than groups. However, the inclusion of 'DEMO' introduces ambiguity about its reliability.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not indicate suitable contexts or prerequisites, leaving the agent without decision criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Where to access historical Kenya and East Africa documents. DEMO.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| document_type | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides no behavioral details. It does not state if it is read-only, what operations it performs, side effects, or prerequisites. Simply stating 'Where to access' is insufficient.
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?
While extremely concise, the description is under-specified. It does not earn its place due to lack of informative content. The structure is a single ambiguous sentence.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the description fails to cover essential context: what the tool actually returns (list? links?), how the parameter affects behavior, and any usage nuances. Incomplete for a single-parameter tool.
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%, yet the description adds no meaning to the single 'document_type' parameter. The parameter remains a mystery with no hints about its purpose or format.
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 provides access to historical Kenya and East Africa documents, distinguishing it from sibling tools like cultural sites or timelines. However, 'Where to access' is slightly vague and the 'DEMO' suffix adds ambiguity about its real functionality.
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 versus the siblings or any context-specific recommendations. The description lacks any when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Kenya independence movement leaders and their roles. DEMO.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. The description only states the tool's content but does not reveal format, side effects, or any constraints. It is insufficient for understanding 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, very concise. However, the inclusion of 'DEMO' is slightly distracting and may mislead about the tool's production status. Otherwise, it is front-loaded with the key purpose.
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 tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description is minimal but provides the core purpose. It does not describe the structure of the output, but the output schema likely covers that. The 'DEMO' flag reduces confidence in completeness.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema fully covers semantics. Per the rubric, baseline 4 applies. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable given no parameters exist.
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 provides information about Kenya independence movement leaders and their roles. This distinguishes it from siblings like cultural_heritage_sites or kenya_history_timeline. However, it lacks an action verb, making it a noun phrase rather than an actionable instruction.
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 versus alternatives such as kenya_history_timeline or oral_history_resources. The description does not specify context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Kenya historical timeline from ancient times to present. DEMO.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| start_year | No | ||
| end_year | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only mentions 'timeline' and 'DEMO', but fails to explain what the tool returns (e.g., events, years) or any behavioral traits like pagination or data source.
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 very short (one sentence), which is concise, but it includes the unnecessary word 'DEMO' that adds confusion. It could be more informative without increasing length.
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 has two parameters and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on usage, parameter ranges, and general behavior, making it hard for an agent to use effectively.
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?
The input schema has two parameters (start_year, end_year) with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not even hint at these parameters, leaving the agent to infer functionality solely from parameter names, which is insufficient.
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 that the tool provides a historical timeline of Kenya from ancient times to present. It is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on cultural sites, ethnic groups, documents, leaders, and oral history.
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?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states what it is, without context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Kenya and East Africa oral history archives and preservation resources. DEMO.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description only states it provides resources and is a 'DEMO', which hints at limited functionality but doesn't disclose specifics like data format, access methods, or rate limits. Minimal behavioral context.
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?
Single sentence, no fluff. Clearly states purpose and scope. The 'DEMO' tag adds a note but could be integrated or clarified. Otherwise efficient.
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?
Simple tool with no parameters and an output schema. Description provides domain scope but is vague on what 'archives and preservation resources' entails. The output schema likely fills in details, but the description alone is minimal for a complete understanding.
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?
No parameters (input schema empty, 100% coverage). With zero params, schema already fully documents the inputs. Description adds domain and scope (Kenya/East Africa), which is helpful but not essential for parameter understanding.
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 it provides 'oral history archives and preservation resources' for Kenya and East Africa, distinguishing it from sibling tools like cultural_heritage_sites or historical_documents. However, the 'DEMO' suffix may confuse whether the tool is fully functional.
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?
Implied usage: to fetch oral history resources for Kenya/East Africa. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use compared to sibling tools. Lacks guidance on prerequisites or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v0.1.0cultural_heritage_sitesethnic_groups_guidehistorical_documentsindependence_leaderskenya_history_timelineoral_history_resourcesEach tool focuses on a distinct aspect of Kenya's history and culture: sites, ethnic groups, documents, independence leaders, timeline, and oral history. There is no overlap, making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool.
All tool names use a consistent snake_case pattern with descriptive noun phrases (e.g., cultural_heritage_sites, ethnic_groups_guide). This follows a clear and predictable convention.
With six tools covering major historical and cultural topics, the count is well-suited for a focused history server. It provides sufficient breadth without being overwhelming.
The tool set covers key areas: sites, groups, documents, leaders, timeline, and oral history. It lacks tools for specific queries like 'search within documents' or 'major events,' but overall it offers a solid foundation for exploring Kenya's history.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
MCP server for Open Archives: Dutch genealogical records and historical page transcriptions.
An MCP server for deep research or task groups
This MCP server provides seamless access to Malaysia's government open data, including datasets, w…
Hosted MCP server for finding authoritative primary data sources and official portals.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/gabrielmahia/historia-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
