Skip to main content
Glama
ianderso

gramps-evidence-mcp

by ianderso
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

link_repositories

Bulk-link multiple sources to their repositories in one call. Each row reports linked, already_linked, missing, or error.

Instructions

Link many sources to their repositories in one call -- a sweep.

Each row is link_repository: its own write and transaction, so a failed row does not stop the rest. Each row reports linked, already_linked, missing or error.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
itemsYesRows of {source, repository, call_number?, media_type?}.
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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field 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"
+}
  2. Addedv1.0.1

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false). The description adds real behavioral context the annotations cannot: each row is its own write and transaction, a failed row does not abort the rest, and the four possible per-row outcomes (linked, already_linked, missing, error) are enumerated. This is exactly the partial-failure semantics an agent needs before committing a bulk write.

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 lines, front-loaded with the verb-and-scope sentence, then failure semantics, then per-row outcomes. No filler and every sentence carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry the return contract, and it does by listing the four possible per-row statuses. Combined with the schema's 100% parameter coverage and stated atomicity-per-row, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 items, source, repository, call_number, media_type and allow_new_type are all documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter semantics (no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema supplies), so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (link), resource (sources to repositories), and scope (many in one call, a 'sweep'), and explicitly ties each row to the sibling link_repository. An agent can distinguish this batch tool from the single-row sibling without opening the schema.

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?

The description makes the batch context clear ('link many ... in one call') and notes each row is equivalent to link_repository, which implicitly routes single links to the sibling. It does not spell out an explicit when-not (e.g. 'use link_repository for one source'), so it falls 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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools