Skip to main content
Glama
ianderso

nara-catalog-mcp

by ianderso
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

search_by_contribution_text

Read-only

Search transcribed, tagged, commented, or OCR text to retrieve full catalog records, not just the contributions themselves.

Instructions

Search what people wrote on records, and get the records back.

This is the difference between searching a catalogue and searching the documents. A pension file titled only with the veteran's name will name his widow, his children and his witnesses in its transcribed text — none of which a title search reaches.

Unlike search_transcriptions and its siblings, which return the contributions themselves, this filters the main index and returns full record summaries. Use this when you want the record; use those when you want to read what a particular volunteer wrote.

A transcription is one volunteer's reading and OCR is a machine's. Both are leads, not evidence — open the page image before citing anything.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoPage of results, 1-based.
limitNoMaximum records (1-100).
tag_textNoWords to find in citizen tags, which on genealogical records are usually the names of people appearing in them.
comment_textNoWords to find in researchers' comments on records.
extracted_textNoWords to find in OCR text, including text NARA's partners contributed.
available_onlineNoRestrict to digitised records only.
transcription_textNoWords to find in volunteers' transcriptions of the handwriting. Accepts AND, OR, NOT, wildcards and "exact phrases".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.2
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered; beyond that the description discloses real behavioral traits — that it filters the main index and returns full record summaries rather than contributions, and that transcriptions/OCR are 'leads, not evidence' that should be verified against the page image. It does not cover pagination or result-cap behavior, but that's in the schema.

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 core action, then the differentiator, then the sibling routing, then a caution. The pension-file illustration and the evidence caveat both earn their place, though the medical-advice-style last paragraph is slightly beyond what's needed purely for tool selection.

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 compensates by stating what comes back (full record summaries). Combined with 100% schema coverage, an agent has enough to invoke correctly; only minor gaps (pagination semantics, empty-query behavior) remain.

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% and each of the 7 parameters is documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description only broadly characterizes the corpus being searched ('what people wrote') and adds no per-parameter syntax or format detail beyond it.

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 (search) and resource (what people wrote on records) and immediately clarifies the scope difference from a title/name search with a concrete pension-file example. It explicitly names the sibling it is not (search_transcriptions) so an agent can distinguish tools without opening schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives an explicit routing rule: 'Use this when you want the record; use those when you want to read what a particular volunteer wrote,' naming search_transcriptions and its siblings as the alternative. The condition that selects each tool is stated rather than implied.

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