Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
swiss-academic-libraries-mcp

swiss-academic-libraries-mcp

by malkreide
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

emanuscripta_list_collections

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists archives and collections in e-manuscripta. Optionally filter by collection name to find set identifiers for retrieving records.

Instructions

Listet alle in e-manuscripta vertretenen Archive und Sammlungen auf.

Die Set-Bezeichner können als set_spec in emanuscripta_list_records verwendet werden.

Args: params (ListCollectionsInput): Input mit: - filter_name (str): Filter nach Sammlungsname (optional)

Returns: str: Tabellarische Übersicht aller Sammlungen mit Set-Bezeichner und Name.

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": {
      "params": "<params>"
    },
    "name": "emanuscripta_list_collections"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
paramsYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.2

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds that it returns a tabular overview, which is consistent. No additional behavioral traits 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

Description is concise, includes a docstring-style args/returns section. No wasted sentences, but slightly verbose for a simple tool.

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?

Given rich annotations and existing output schema, description is adequate. It provides key purpose and usage context. Could mention return format more explicitly.

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?

Only one parameter (params) with nested filter_name. Schema description coverage is 0% because description does not explain parameters beyond what is in the schema. The description does not add value for parameter meaning.

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?

Description states it lists archives and collections in e-manuscripta, with specific mention of set-spec usage. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like emanuscripta_list_records.

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?

Description explicitly mentions that set specifiers can be used in emanuscripta_list_records, providing context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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