Skip to main content
Glama

jp_lit_get_record

Retrieve bibliographic metadata and official record URLs from Japanese literature databases without altering external sources.

Instructions

external read / local bookkeeping write(非破壊)。文献レコード詳細を取得する。source=national_archives / jacar は目録メタデータと公式レコードURLを返し、画像本体・IIIF・OCR本文は取得しない。source=nijl_articles は国文学論文DBのHTMLから書誌メタデータと公式レコードURLを best-effort で返し、本文・PDF・OPAC追跡は取得しない。source=kokusho は国書DBのJSONから書誌・著作・所在・公式URL・manifest URL 等のメタデータを返し、manifest 本体・画像・OCR は取得しない。source=ninjal_bibliography は日本語研究・日本語教育文献DBのHTMLから書誌メタデータと本文リンクURLを best-effort で返し、本文自体は取得しない。source=ndl_digital の場合、source_metadata.next_digital_library.available=true であれば jp_lit_get_text_coordinates / jp_lit_get_fulltext / jp_lit_search_pages が利用可能。false の場合は OCR 系ツールを利用できない。実務上は次世代側未収録であることが多いが、現実装ではアクセス制限等との厳密な区別はしていない。個人送信対象など、MCP から自動全文取得できなくても NDL ログインや参加館・館内端末で手動閲覧できる導線は content_access.manual_viewing を確認する 外部sourceは変更しない。cache hitでもlocal session履歴を更新し、cache missまたはforce_refreshではlocal cacheを作成・置換する。

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sourceYes検索・取得・記録対象の情報源ID。jp_lit_search の結果や source plan に含まれる source を指定する。
source_idYessource 内のレコードID。jp_lit_search の items[].source_id を指定する。
force_refreshNotrue の場合はローカル cache を使わず upstream API から再取得する。false の場合は保存済み cache を優先する。

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rawYes
urlYes
cacheNo
titleYes
extentYes
sourceYes
authorsYes
summaryYes
languageYes
subjectsYes
subtitleYes
issued_atYes
publisherYes
source_idYes
identifiersYes
availabilityYes
journal_titleYes
material_typeYes
title_readingYes
content_accessYes
issued_at_labelYes
source_metadataYes
publication_placeYes
table_of_contentsYes
alternative_titlesYes
issued_at_precisionYes
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description adds detailed behavioral context: it performs local bookkeeping writes (non-destructive), updates session history, creates/replaces cache, and does not modify external sources. It also clarifies conditions for using OCR-related tools, providing rich behavioral insights.

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?

The description is long but well-structured, with the purpose front-loaded in Japanese and English. Each source's behavior is listed clearly. While it could be more concise, the density of information is justified given the complexity of multiple sources and conditions.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple sources, caching, interaction with other tools), the description is highly complete. It covers each source's output, what is not returned, cache behavior, and prerequisites for using other tools. The output schema exists, so return value details are not needed.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented. The description adds context about source-specific behaviors (e.g., what each source returns), which enriches understanding of the 'source' parameter, but does not significantly add to parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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?

The description explicitly states it retrieves record details (文献レコード詳細を取得する) and distinguishes each source's behavior, noting what is returned and what is not. It also references sibling tools like jp_lit_get_text_coordinates, jp_lit_get_fulltext, and jp_lit_search_pages for further actions, clearly differentiating its role.

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 description provides clear context for when to use the tool, especially for ndl_digital by checking source_metadata.next_digital_library.available. It implies when not to use it (e.g., for fulltext or images, other tools are needed), but it could explicitly state alternatives for non-metadata needs.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/itarunnn/jp-lit-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server