familysearch-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_collection

Read-only

Read a FamilySearch record collection's scope and record, people, and image counts to judge coverage before trusting a nil result; no token required.

Instructions

Read one record collection: what it covers, and how much of it there is.

Worth reading before trusting a nil result. The counts say how many records, people and images the collection holds, and a collection whose image count is far below its record count was indexed from film that was largely never published.

Works without a token.

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": {
      "collection_id": "<collection_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_collection"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`collection_id`	Yes	Record collection id, e.g. '2178'. search_collections returns one per result.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value: it explicitly notes 'Works without a token' (auth requirement), which is not in the annotations, plus the interpretive heuristic that a low image-to-record ratio means largely unpublished film.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loads the core purpose, then progressively adds the pre-check tip and the count-interpretation nuance. Slightly stylized but every sentence carries usable information; no filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description takes on the burden of describing returns and does reasonably well, explaining that counts cover records, people and images and how to interpret them. It stops short of describing response shape or field names, but nothing critical for invocation 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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents collection_id with an example and a pointer to search_collections. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource: 'Read one record collection', and adds scope ('what it covers, and how much of it there is'). It implicitly contrasts with the plural search_collections sibling by saying 'one', but never names that sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Gives a concrete usage heuristic: read it before trusting a nil result. That is clear context for when to reach for it, though it names no alternative tool or exclusion condition, so it stops at 4.

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