Skip to main content
Glama

manage_repository

Create, read, update, or delete Gramps repository records. Use it to add, fetch, modify, or remove repository data in your genealogy research.

Instructions

Create, read, update or delete Gramps Repository records. Writes: create, update, delete.

action=get lists repositories (handle empty) or returns one by handle. action=create posts a full Repository JSON object in data; action=update PUTs data to /repositories/; action=delete removes it. Repository payload fields: gramps_id, type, name, address_list, url_list, note_list, change, ... . Sources link to a repository through their reporef_list entry.

Args: action: The operation, "get", "create", "update" or "delete". handle: Repository handle; required for get-one, update, delete. data: The Repository object for create/update (required for those). query: Optional dict of extra query-string parameters for reads. instance: Gramps Web base URL from get_instances; default = first.

Returns: dict: {"status", "url", "data"}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNo
queryNo
actionYes
handleNo
instanceNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses that create/update/delete are write operations, states the HTTP methods used, and notes that delete removes the repository. It also explains how an empty handle changes get behavior. It could add permission or error details, but the core side effects are visible.

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 well structured with a summary line, then action details, payload guidance, and an Args/Returns block. It is longer than strictly necessary, with some redundancy between the first line and 'Writes: create, update, delete,' but every section adds practical value and is easy to scan.

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 the tool has no annotations and no output schema, the description does a good job covering actions, parameter semantics, payload fields, and the return dict shape. It falls short of fully specifying the Repository object structure, but the listed fields plus the ellipsis and the CRUD details make the tool usable in most cases.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all parameters, and it does. It defines the valid action values, when handle is required, when data is required, what query is for, and that instance comes from get_instances with a default of the first instance. It even lists common payload fields, fully compensating for the sparse schema.

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 and resource: 'Create, read, update or delete Gramps Repository records.' It clearly identifies the resource type, distinguishes it from sibling manage_* tools for other Gramps objects, and immediately clarifies that this is the CRUD tool for repositories.

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?

The description gives clear operation-level guidance: get can list or fetch one, create requires a payload, update uses a handle, and delete removes the record. It also notes that sources link to repositories via reporef_list, providing helpful context. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for non-repository records, but the resource-specific framing makes appropriate usage clear.

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