Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
matricula-mcp

matricula-mcp

by ianderso
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

matricula_parishes

Read-only

List the parishes of a diocese or archive with their coordinates, and filter by name to locate the right parish for genealogical research.

Instructions

List the parishes of one diocese or archive, with their coordinates.

Names are matched as Matricula writes them; a village that was not a parish is found through matricula_search, which reads the parishes' descriptions. about is the section's own note, often naming the archive and how to reach it: the place to report a publication.

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": {
      "section": "<section>"
    },
    "name": "matricula_parishes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countNoMost parishes to return (1-1000).
queryNoKeep parishes whose name contains this, ignoring case, accents and hyphens, e.g. 'kirchberg'.
refreshNoTrue asks Matricula again instead of using the cache, and replaces the cached copy. Lists are kept 28 days, parish and register pages 7, searches 1.
sectionYesA section key from matricula_sections, e.g. 'deutschland/passau', or its Matricula address.

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 already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and remote-data profile is covered. Beyond that, the description discloses the name-matching convention ('as Matricula writes them') and explains an output field (`about`) that would otherwise be opaque, which matters because there is no output schema. Cache lifetime and refresh behavior are left entirely to the schema rather than restated.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the operation and scope before the caveat and the output note. Every sentence carries information, though the final clause about reporting a publication is slightly oblique and could be tightened.

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 four-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the main alternative route, and one notable return field. It does not enumerate the remaining returned fields (names, coordinates are only hinted), so an agent knows the shape but not the full record structure.

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 are already documented at the field level, including the query matching rules, count bounds, and cache refresh semantics. The description adds only a marginal nuance that `section` may name an archive as well as a diocese; otherwise it defers to the schema, which is the correct baseline.

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?

Uses a specific verb and resource ('List the parishes of one diocese or archive') and states the payload ('with their coordinates'). It also distinguishes itself from matricula_search by scope, telling the agent that this tool reads parish records while the sibling reads descriptions.

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 an explicit routing rule: a village that was not a parish is found through matricula_search. That is a real when-to-use-alternative statement rather than a vague hint. It stops short of covering other siblings such as matricula_registers or spelling out prerequisites for obtaining the `section` key.

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