Skip to main content
Glama

library

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read personal knowledge stored in named shelves—recipes, books, logs, expenses—by listing, browsing, or searching; if a search finds no match, it returns the shelf to read rather than an empty answer.

Instructions

Library lane: reads the owner's everyday knowledge - recipes, books, a training log, expenses - kept apart from the code lane; nothing here is ever injected, ranked against a rule, or counted toward any cap. Use shelve to write instead. No arguments lists the shelves and how much each holds; shelf lists that shelf's live entries (label narrows it); id returns one entry whole, retired or not, marked '(retired)' if so; query searches live entries, optionally within one shelf. Read-only. A search never answers 'nothing' - it hands back the shelf, or the shelf list, to read instead, since the words asked with are rarely the words written. Replies with the requested listing or entry, or that fallback.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoOne entry's number, as the listings show it. Returns it whole.
labelNoNarrow one shelf to the entries carrying this label. Labels are how a big shelf stays usable - there are never sub-shelves.
queryNoFree text. Searched over titles, bodies and labels, in four steps that end in a list to read rather than in an empty answer.
shelfNoOne shelf, by name. On its own it lists that shelf, one line per entry. With `query` it searches inside that shelf only.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only and idempotent, but the description adds valuable non-obvious behaviors: searches never return 'nothing' but fall back to a shelf or shelf list, retired entries are marked, and nothing in the library is injected, ranked, or capped. No contradiction 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is dense and front-loaded, opening with purpose and routing before detailing modes. It is long, but every sentence earns its place for a multi-mode tool with no output schema to fall back on.

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?

The description covers all four parameter modes, read-only behavior, the write alternative, the fallback search behavior, and the expected reply shape. Despite having no output schema, an agent has enough context to call the tool correctly in every mode.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds mode-level semantics beyond individual property docs: no arguments lists shelves, shelf plus label narrows live entries, id returns one whole entry, and query can be scoped to one shelf. This connects the parameters to invocation patterns the schema alone does not spell out.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pairing ('reads the owner's everyday knowledge') and clearly separates the library lane from the code lane. It names shelve as the write counterpart and enumerates the distinct read modes (no args, shelf, id, query), so an agent can tell this tool apart from siblings without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

'Use shelve to write instead' is an explicit when-not-to-use instruction with a named alternative, and the 'kept apart from the code lane' plus 'never injected, ranked against a rule, or counted toward any cap' gives clear context for when library is the right read tool. This is strong routing guidance.

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