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

polish-archives-mcp

by ianderso
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

geneteka_coverage

Read-only

Check which Geneteka registers a parish has indexed, including record types, years, and rid, to verify coverage before trusting a zero search result.

Instructions

List the registers Geneteka has indexed for a parish: record type, years, and rid.

Check this before trusting a zero from geneteka_search: a parish or year not listed here was never searched. Years are exactly as Geneteka lists them, gaps included ('1741-55,90,98' is 1741-1755, 1790, 1798). A register is named by its parish, not by each village in it. Pass a rid to geneteka_search to search one register.

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": {
      "place": "<place>"
    },
    "name": "geneteka_coverage"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
yearNoMark whether each register lists this year as indexed.
placeYesParish name, or part of it, e.g. 'Kraków' or 'Mariacki'.
regionNoKeep one region, e.g. '06mp' (see regions).
refreshNoTrue re-reads the coverage list (kept a week).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: coverage is derived from an external index, a zero result means 'not indexed' rather than 'no matches', and year strings are literal with gaps. It stops short of noting staleness except via the schema's refresh note, so a 3 is apt rather than a 4-5.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying distinct information: what is listed, why to check it, how years are formatted, and how parish naming works. The one dense sentence explaining the '1741-55,90,98' format is justified because it prevents a misread of the data.

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?

Without an output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so by naming record type, years, and rid. It also explains the ambiguity that would otherwise confuse an agent: gaps in year ranges and registers named by parish rather than village. Only the region-parameter interplay and cache staleness are left to the schema.

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 documented, making 3 the baseline. The description adds meaning around two of them: 'place' is matched against the register's parish name rather than each village within it, and 'rid' is the identifier that can be handed to geneteka_search. That extra interpretation nudges it just above a bare 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the registers Geneteka has indexed for a parish') and names the returned fields (record type, years, rid). It is distinguishable from geneteka_search, which consumes a rid, and from regions, which provides region codes.

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?

Explicitly says when to use: 'Check this before trusting a zero from geneteka_search' because an unlisted parish or year was never searched. It also names the follow-up path: pass a rid to geneteka_search to search one register, giving a clear before/after workflow with a sibling.

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