Skip to main content
Glama
ianderso
by ianderso

fulltext_search

Read-only

Search handwriting-recognized text in deeds, wills, probate, and court page images to find names or phrases, including witnesses, heirs, and neighbours that indexes miss.

Instructions

Search the machine-read text of page images: deeds, wills, probate, court files.

Finds a name or phrase anywhere on a page, including the witnesses, heirs and neighbours no index names. Each hit is one page image, with the passages that matched.

The text is handwriting recognition, a machine reading: open the image with get_image_links, read it yourself, and cite the image, never the text. Coverage is partial, so no result proves nothing. Each hit gives the citation path: collection, record title and image ark.

Requires an access token.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoA name, matched only against the names recognised on each page. A plain name is searched as a phrase; same syntax as text.
textNoWords to find anywhere in a page's machine-read text. Every word or "quoted phrase" must match unless you use OR; -word excludes, and * is a wildcard after at least three letters (Will*). Words match as spelled: try the variants a clerk might have written.
countNoPages to return (1-100).
facetsNoAlso return counts by collection, century, place and record type.
offsetNoPages to skip, for paging.
filtersNoFilters copied from a previous call's facets, e.g. 'c.recordPlace1=on&f.recordPlace0=10'. Place, record type and century narrow only this way, and they match the collection's description, not the page.
image_groupNoAn image group (DGS film) number, to search one volume, e.g. '008190429'.
collection_idNoRestrict to one collection, by a result's or a facet's collection id.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.3.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only/open-world, but the description adds substantial context: an access token is required, coverage is partial ('no result proves nothing'), the text is unreliable OCR of handwriting that must be verified against the image, and hits include a citation path. This is exactly the extra behavioral guidance the annotations cannot supply.

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?

Short paragraphs, front-loaded with the core action, then the caveat and the follow-up instruction. Every sentence carries information an agent needs (scope, edge cases, citation guidance, auth) with no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description describes what a hit contains ('one page image, with the passages that matched') and its citation path, plus the auth prerequisite and the coverage limitation. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret this correctly is missing.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters including search syntax, paging, filters and facets. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Search the machine-read text of page images: deeds, wills, probate, court files.' It clarifies the scope is full-text over page images rather than indexed records, which distinguishes it from siblings like search_records and get_records_on_image.

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?

Explains the distinctive use case (finding witnesses, heirs and neighbours 'no index names') and names the follow-up tool explicitly: 'open the image with get_image_links, read it yourself, and cite the image, never the text.' It doesn't state explicit exclusions for when NOT to use it versus search_records, so it falls just short of a 5.

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