Retrieve a list of source libraries from the Digital Guitar Archive with record counts and location information to identify available historical collections.
Get a list of all source libraries (RISM sigla) in the archive with record counts and location info
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what data is returned without disclosing behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether the list is static or dynamic. It mentions 'all' sources but doesn't clarify if this includes archived or inactive ones.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output details without any redundant or unnecessary information. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does but lacks completeness regarding behavioral context (e.g., response format, error handling). It covers the basics but leaves gaps that could hinder effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately adds no parameter details, focusing on the tool's purpose instead, which meets the baseline for this scenario.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get a list') and resource ('all source libraries (RISM sigla) in the archive'), specifying what information is included ('record counts and location info'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on listing sources rather than getting details or searching, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving a comprehensive list of sources with metadata, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_guitar_archive' for filtered queries. It lacks any mention of prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.