Skip to main content
Glama
ianderso

gramps-evidence-mcp

by ianderso
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

add_repository

Create a repository record for institutions holding sources (e.g., archives, libraries, cemeteries) to cite them in your evidence model.

Instructions

Create a Repository (an institution or place that holds sources).

Repositories sit at the top of the evidence model: Repository -> Source -> Citation -> fact. Create these for archives, libraries, cemeteries, or websites you'll cite sources from.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNoOptional website URL.
nameYesRepository name, e.g. 'National Archives (NARA)'.
allow_new_typeNoAccept a type that is neither a Gramps standard type nor one of the tree's custom types, creating it as a new custom type. Only when meant: a near-miss is refused with the closest names.
repository_typeNoType: 'Library', 'Archive', 'Cemetery', 'Church', 'Web site', etc.Archive

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.2.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / allow_new_type
      Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "description": "Accept a type that is neither a Gramps standard type nor one of the tree's custom types, creating it as a new custom type. Only when meant: a near-miss is refused with the closest names.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / repository_type / description
      Previous value: -"Type: 'Library', 'Archive', 'Cemetery', 'Church', 'Website', etc."New value: +"Type: 'Library', 'Archive', 'Cemetery', 'Church', 'Web site', etc."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare a non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the domain-model context but says nothing about duplicate-name handling, what identity the new repository receives, or what the call returns — the near-miss type-refusal behavior lives only in the schema's allow_new_type text.

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-loaded with the action and entity, then a short conceptual gloss. Three sentences with minimal waste; the hierarchy line earns its place by orienting the agent in the evidence model.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Annotations carry the safety profile and there is no output schema to explain, so the description is nearly sufficient. Missing nothing critical, but for a create tool it would help to note that a duplicate/identical repository is not deduplicated here (find_duplicates and merge_objects exist) and roughly what comes back.

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 all four parameters (name, url, repository_type, allow_new_type) are already documented with examples and defaults. The description's phrase 'institution or place that holds sources' lightly reinforces what `name` means but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail.

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 ('Create a Repository') and immediately defines the resource as 'an institution or place that holds sources.' The evidence-model line (Repository -> Source -> Citation -> fact) places it relative to add_source and add_citation, giving implicit sibling differentiation, though it never names those tools directly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

'Create these for archives, libraries, cemeteries, or websites you'll cite sources from' gives a domain context for use, but largely restates the repository_type values already documented in the schema. No alternative is named (e.g., link_repository for attaching an existing repository to a source), so the agent must infer when this tool wins over its siblings.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools