Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
norway-archives-mcp

norway-archives-mcp

by ianderso
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

da_search_sources

Read-only

Search Norwegian church books, censuses, and probate records by place, period, and list type; results show which lists are scanned or searchable.

Instructions

Find sources (church books, censuses, probate records) by place, period and list.

Each source says which lists it holds, which are scanned and which are searchable. A list that is scanned but not searchable can still be read page by page with da_get_source and da_list_pages.

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": "da_search_sources"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoResult page.
queryNoWords in the source's title, e.g. a parish name.
refreshNoTrue asks again instead of using the cached answer, and replaces it.
year_toNoLatest year the source covers.
list_typeNoOnly sources holding this list, by code or label (e.g. kf, uf).
year_fromNoEarliest year the source covers.
municipalityNoHistorical municipality: name or four-digit number.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the useful availability model (each source reports which lists it holds and whether they are scanned or searchable), which is behavior an agent needs to interpret results. It does not discuss pagination behavior or result volume, but nothing contradicts the annotations.

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?

Two short sentences with the resource identification front-loaded and the follow-up routing kept brief; every clause carries information. Slightly dense phrasing ("which lists it holds, which are scanned and which are searchable") but no filler.

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 seven-parameter, all-optional, read-only search with no output schema, the description covers what is searched, what each result conveys, and what to do when a hit is not directly searchable — a solid end-to-end picture. It omits any hint about result paging (the page parameter) and the effect of combining filters, which are the remaining gaps.

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 every parameter is already documented with examples. The description only loosely maps "place, period and list" onto municipality, year_from/year_to and list_type, adding no syntax or edge-case meaning beyond the schema — baseline 3 applies.

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 ("find") and resource ("sources") and enumerates the resource types (church books, censuses, probate records) plus the filter axes (place, period, list). The resource is clearly distinct from sibling searchers like da_search_persons, though no sibling is named explicitly to sharpen the contrast.

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 second sentence explicitly routes the agent: a list that is scanned but not searchable should be handled with da_get_source and da_list_pages. That is a real when-to-use-this-vs-alternative rule, but it only covers one branch — nothing says when to pick this over da_search_persons or nb_search, and no exclusions are given.

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