Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gramps-evidence-mcp

gramps-evidence-mcp

by ianderso
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

get_researcher

Read-only

Retrieve researcher details embedded in a family tree to verify them before sharing GEDCOM or Gramps XML exports.

Instructions

Read the researcher details recorded for this tree.

These are embedded in every export, so they travel with any GEDCOM or Gramps XML you hand to someone else. Worth checking before sharing one.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_researcher"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false; the description adds meaningful context beyond them — the researcher data is embedded in every export and travels with any GEDCOM/XML shared externally, which is a real privacy/disclosure trait an agent should know. It does not describe the fields returned, but the core behavioral insight is present.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler. Purpose is front-loaded, then the reason it matters. Each sentence earns its place and the total length is well-matched to a trivial 0-param getter.

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?

For a param-free read tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies purpose, rationale, and a usage trigger. The only shortfall is that with no output schema it doesn't hint at the shape of the returned researcher fields, leaving the agent to discover them.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Zero parameters, so by rule the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description needs to compensate for a schema gap.

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 the researcher details recorded for this tree.' An agent can tell this is the tree's researcher metadata and not a person/source/note record despite the crowded get_* sibling list. It stops short of enumerating what 'researcher details' contains (name, email, address), which would help disambiguate from a generic record getter.

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 scenario: 'Worth checking before sharing one' (a GEDCOM/Gramps XML export). That is a clear when-to-use context. It names no alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling competes for this resource, so the omission is minor.

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