Skip to main content
Glama

jp_lit_list_cache

List and aggregate cached search results from Japanese literature databases, filterable by date, source, or session ID.

Instructions

ローカルキャッシュの一覧・集計を返す。日付や source で絞り込み可能

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toolNo
session_idNo
saved_onNo
saved_fromNo
saved_toNo
sourceNo
limitNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toolYes
session_idYes
saved_onYes
saved_on_resolvedYes
saved_fromYes
saved_toYes
sourceYes
totalYes
limitYes
cache_keysYes
summaryYes
itemsYes
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, side effects, or required permissions. For a listing tool, it is likely safe, but the description fails to confirm this.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Extremely concise with two sentences that front-load the core purpose. No extraneous information, making it easy to parse quickly.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given 7 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema that is not explained, the description is far from complete. It fails to inform about return structure, filtering specifics, or parameter usage limits beyond what the schema provides.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only generically mentions filtering by date and source. It does not explain the 7 parameters (tool, session_id, saved_on, etc.) or their constraints, relying solely on the schema which lacks descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states it returns a list/aggregation of local cache and can be filtered by date and source. However, it does not fully distinguish from other list tools like jp_lit_list_sessions, though the cache-specific context is sufficient.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., jp_lit_search_cache_index or jp_lit_delete_cache). The description only implies listing, but lacks explicit usage context or exclusions.

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