ndl-search-mcp

search_bibliography

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search bibliographic records by title, author, or both and paginate results to find National Diet Library catalog materials.

Instructions

Find bibliographic records by title, author, or both. Start is one-based.

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": "search_bibliography"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`start`	No
`title`	No
`creator`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the offset convention ('Start is one-based') and says nothing about matching semantics (exact vs substring, case sensitivity) or how results are ordered and capped.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the core capability front-loaded and the offset caveat immediately after. Nothing is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but with 0% schema coverage across four parameters the description leaves most of the calling contract undefined. The combined-field behavior ('or both') is ambiguous about AND vs OR semantics, which matters for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, yet it clarifies only 'start' (one-based) out of four parameters. It does not explain 'limit' bounds behavior, nor whether 'title'/'creator' are partial matches, nor how the 'creator' parameter relates to the word 'author' used in the description.

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 ('bibliographic records') plus the two searchable fields, so the tool's job is unambiguous. There are no sibling tools to differentiate from, so it lands at 4 rather than 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?

The phrase 'by title, author, or both' implies the calling patterns, but it never says when to prefer this over other lookup paths or what happens if neither field is supplied. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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

search_bibliographyB