eth-library-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.3.4
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct search aspect: info, general resources, specific resource by ID, archive, type, persons, education. There is no ambiguity between them.
Naming Consistency4/5
All tools use 'eth_' prefix and follow verb_noun pattern except 'eth_library_info' which uses noun_info instead of a verb. Minor inconsistency but overall predictable.
Tool Count5/5
7 tools is well-scoped for a library catalog MCP server, covering essential search and retrieval operations without excess.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers general search, specific retrieval, and specialized searches (archive, type, persons, education). Missing features like search by author or date but core workflows are covered.
Average 3.3/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored. Lowest: 2.7/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 1 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 51 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on July 31, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds no behavioral details beyond these, such as data scope, pagination behavior, or authentication needs. With annotations covering safety, the bar is lower, but the description does not provide additional transparency.
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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., adding parameter hints) without losing conciseness.
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?
With 5 parameters, an output schema, and 6 sibling tools, the description is too minimal to be complete. It does not explain return values, pagination, or how this search differs from others, leaving the agent with insufficient context.
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?
The description does not mention any of the 5 parameters (resource_type, query, limit, offset, open_access_only). Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate but fails to add any meaning beyond the schema.
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 clearly states the tool searches resources by type (maps, images, archives, etc.), aligning with the tool name. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like eth_search_resources or eth_search_archive, which may have overlapping functionality.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as eth_search_resources or eth_search_archive. The description lacks context for tool selection in a multi-search environment.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is clear. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic search action, such as pagination, result format, or scope.
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 description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it is too brief and omits important context like available archives or usage notes. It achieves efficiency at the cost of completeness.
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 the tool's complexity (multiple archives, pagination options, and an output schema), the description is inadequate. It does not mention the archive choices, search behavior, or return format, relying entirely on the schema and annotations.
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?
The schema already provides detailed descriptions for all parameters (archive with enum meanings, query format, limit, offset). The tool description adds no additional parameter information, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 clearly states the verb 'Durchsucht' (searches) and the resource 'Archiv oder eine Sammlung der ETH-Bibliothek', distinguishing it from sibling tools that search resources, persons, or education.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like eth_search_resources or eth_search_by_type. The description does not mention alternatives or conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint(true), idempotentHint(true), destructiveHint(false). The description adds a specific bug note about the Persons API returning HTTP 404, which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations. No other traits (auth, rate limits) are mentioned, but annotations cover safety adequately.
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 very short (two sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose. The bug warning is important but could be more structured or separated. However, it remains concise with no unnecessary content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has good annotations and a known output schema, but the description lacks information about return values, pagination, or error handling beyond the bug note. For a search tool, it should mention what properties are returned or how to interpret results. The bug notice is important but incomplete overall.
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?
The input schema provides descriptions for both parameters (e.g., 'Anzahl Ergebnisse (1–50)' for limit, and 'Name oder Stichwort zur Personensuche' with examples for query). The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.
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 'Sucht Personen in der ETH-Bibliothek Persons API', which clearly indicates the tool searches for persons. The annotations title further clarifies. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like eth_search_resources or eth_search_archive, leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific person search.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only includes a bug warning about a possible HTTP 404, which is operational but not about usage context. No explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' statements are present.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. Description adds basic context (returns overview) but doesn't elaborate on behavior beyond annotations.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded, no wasted words. Appropriately sized for a simple info tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Minimal description for a tool with no params and an output schema. Sufficient but could be more informative (e.g., what the overview includes).
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?
No parameters exist, so schema description coverage is 100%. Description doesn't need to add parameter info; baseline 4 applies.
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 'Gibt eine Übersicht über den ETH Library MCP Server zurück.' clearly states the verb (returns) and resource (overview). It distinguishes from sibling search/get tools by being a general info endpoint.
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 siblings. Implicitly it's for server info, but no explicit when/when-not or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so no contradiction. The description adds the API and feature list (full-text, field search, facets, pagination), but does not provide deeper behavioral context like rate limits or return format. Adequate but not exceptional.
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?
The description is three short sentences that efficiently convey purpose, underlying API, and supported features. No wordiness or redundancy; each sentence adds distinct value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (multiple parameters, pagination) and presence of an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and features but omits details on error handling, auth, or rate limits. Adequate for a straightforward read-only search tool.
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?
Despite the context signal indicating 0% schema description coverage, the actual input schema includes detailed descriptions for all parameters (e.g., query format with field, operator, value). The description only adds a high-level summary of features, which does not significantly enhance what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 applies.
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 clearly states the tool searches the ETH library catalog with over 30 million resources, mentioning the specific API and supported features. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like eth_get_resource (single resource) and eth_search_archive (archive-specific).
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?
The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No 'use this for general search; use eth_search_archive for archives' or similar advice. Usage context is implied but not clarified.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds the nuance of a 'curated' search, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like result ordering, pagination, or potential restrictions.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose with no extraneous words. It is appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema and rich annotations, the description is minimally complete. However, it does not mention the expected output format or any additional context like the curated nature's implications, leaving room for improvement.
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?
The description provides no additional parameter information beyond the input schema. However, the schema itself has detailed descriptions for each parameter (topic, limit, resource_type, open_access_only), so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Kuratierte Suche nach bildungsrelevanten Ressourcen' (curated search for education-relevant resources). It specifies the verb 'search' and the resource type (education resources at ETH Library), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'eth_search_resources' which likely handle general searches.
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 description implies usage for education-related queries but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the operation type. Consistent with annotations.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with verb and object, no redundancy.
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?
For a simple retrieval tool with good annotations and schema, description is adequate. Could mention system (Alma) but not essential.
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 descriptions fully cover each parameter with language, ID example, and availability toggle. Tool description adds no extra parameter info.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves a single resource from the ETH library using its MMS-ID, which is specific and distinguishes from search or info sibling tools.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives, but the verb 'abrufen' implies direct retrieval by ID, contrasting with search tools. Missing when-not conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![eth-library-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/malkreide/eth-library-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/malkreide/eth-library-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![eth-library-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/malkreide/eth-library-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/malkreide/eth-library-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/malkreide/eth-library-mcp'

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