genealogy-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

where_are_records

Read-only

Find which archive holds parish registers, revision lists, confession lists, or civil records for a historical province or modern region, using year and village to resolve moved borders and churches.

Instructions

Which archives now hold the records (parish registers, revision lists, confession lists, civil records) of a province of the Russian Empire, the Kingdom of Poland, Galicia, Bukovina, East Prussia, the Baltics or the Caucasus — borders moved, so this is often not the archive of today's region. Also works from a modern region back to the historical provinces it was part of. With a year, says whose land it was then (southern Bessarabia — Cahul, Ismail, Bolgrad — was Moldavian/Romanian in 1857–1878, all Bessarabia Romanian in 1918–1940 and 1941–1944); with a village, which church kept its books (a village without a church was recorded in a neighbouring one).

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": "where_are_records"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`lang`	No		en
`year`	No	The year of the record: where borders moved (southern Bessarabia 1857–1878, Bessarabia 1918–1944) it decides the country, county and archive
`place`	Yes	A historical province or a modern region: «Тульская губерния», 'Volhynia', 'Бессарабия', 'Galicia', «Брянская область», 'Kyiv'; for southern Bessarabia also a district: 'Cahul', «Измаильский уезд», 'Bolgrad'
`village`	No	The village: tells which church kept its registers, where that is known, and how to find out

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv0.6.0Oct 19, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / place / description

Previous value: -"A historical province or a modern region: «Тульская губерния», 'Volhynia', 'Бессарабия', 'Galicia', «Брянская область», 'Kyiv'"New value: +"A historical province or a modern region: «Тульская губерния», 'Volhynia', 'Бессарабия', 'Galicia', «Брянская область», 'Kyiv'; for southern Bessarabia also a district: 'Cahul', «Измаильский уезд», 'Bolgrad'"

addedInput schema / properties / village

Added value: +{
+  "default": "",
+  "description": "The village: tells which church kept its registers, where that is known, and how to find out",
+  "title": "Village",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / year

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "The year of the record: where borders moved (southern Bessarabia 1857–1878, Bessarabia 1918–1944) it decides the country, county and archive",
+  "title": "Year"
+}

First observedv0.5.1Oct 16, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false (a safe, closed-domain lookup), so the bar is lower. The description nevertheless adds real behavioral context beyond them: that results are border-shift-aware rather than reflecting today's regions, that 1857–1878 southern Bessarabia is treated as Moldavian/Romanian, and that a village lacking its own church is reported via a neighbouring parish.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The single dense paragraph is front-loaded with the core question and every clause carries content, but the heavy em-dash and parenthetical stacking (Bessarabia date spans, the church aside) makes it a run-on that is harder to parse than it needs to be. Content is not wasted, but structure is not earning its keep.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-format details are rightly omitted, and the description covers both lookup directions, the year/village conditionals, and the border-change caveat for a genuinely complex domain. It is only missing fallback behavior for unrecognized or ambiguous place names.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 75% and the description meaningfully extends it: it explains why 'year' matters (it decides country/county/archive when borders moved, with concrete Bessarabia spans), what 'village' yields (which church kept the registers, and how to find out), and gives accepted place forms ('Volhynia', 'Бессарабия', 'Cahul', «Измаильский уезд»). 'lang' is left to its enum, which is a minor gap.

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?

The description states a specific resource and outcome: mapping a province/region (of the Russian Empire, Congress Poland, Galicia, Bukovina, East Prussia, the Baltics, the Caucasus) to the archives that hold its records, and notes it runs in both directions (modern region → historical provinces). The verb is framed as a question rather than a clean verb+resource, and it never distinguishes itself from the overlapping sibling place_history, so it stops short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Conditional usage is described for the optional inputs ('with a year, says whose land it was then'; 'with a village, which church kept its books'), which tells the agent when the extra parameters matter. However nothing states when to reach for this tool over place_history or record_guide, and there are no exclusions — usage is implied rather than directed.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.