Skip to main content
Glama
smeet666

mcp-archiveorg

Search works and editions

search_books
Read-onlyIdempotent

Find books in the Internet Archive's Open Library catalogue by title, author, subject, setting, time period, or decade. Get first publication year, edition count, and archive identifiers to read scans.

Instructions

Find a book on Open Library, the Internet Archive's catalogue of works, either by name or by description. Pass 'query' when you know what you are looking for: a title, an author. Free text matches parts of words and reads titles and authors together, so a name also finds works by authors whose name merely contains it: read 'authors' on each row before treating a result as that author's work. Pass the criteria instead when you do not, and they combine: 'subject' for what a work is catalogued under, 'place' for where it is set, 'time' for the period it treats, 'person' for who it is about, plus ranges on the year of first publication and on the page count. 'sort' by rating or by readers answers 'what is worth reading', which relevance alone does not. 'first_published_year' is the year Open Library derives from its edition records, and a reissue or a mistyped edition can put it centuries from the real date; 'newest' and 'oldest' rank on that field, so the rows carrying the doubtful years lead the order. Answers who wrote a book, when it first appeared and how many editions exist, which the item catalogue describes poorly because it holds one upload at a time. 'archive_identifiers' lists up to 3 scans of the work: pass one to get_item, or use it to read the book itself. 'scan_count' says how many the work has. A scan is one edition, and a work first printed centuries ago is often held only as a later reissue or a translation, so read the scan's own record before dating what it holds. Use this to identify a work, and search_inside to find a phrase within one.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNo
sortNo'rating' is how readers scored it, 'readers' is how many recorded reading it, and both answer a question relevance cannot. 'newest' and 'oldest' rank on 'first_published_year', which the index takes from edition records: read that field on each row against the work's page before repeating it.relevance
timeNoThe period the work treats, such as '20th century'.
limitNo
placeNoWhere the work is set, such as 'Shanghai'.
queryNoTitle or author, as free text. Optional when a criterion below is given.
personNoWho the work is about, such as 'Napoleon'.
subjectNoWhat the work is catalogued under, such as 'grief' or 'spy stories'. Also carries prizes and lists, such as 'Booker Prize'.
year_toNoLatest first publication.
languageNoThree-letter code of the language, such as 'eng' or 'fre'.
pages_maxNoLongest acceptable work. The count is a median across editions.
pages_minNoShortest acceptable work.
year_fromNoEarliest first publication.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageYes
booksYes
notesYes
queryYesThe free text the caller sent, as it was sent. Null when the search was made of criteria alone.
totalYesWorks matching, not the number returned.
searched_forYesWhat this answer answers, in words: the free text and every criterion applied.
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds meaningful caveats beyond annotations: free-text matching reads titles and authors together, first_published_year is derived from edition records and can be inaccurate, and archive_identifiers lists up to 3 scans. 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is long but front-loaded with the main purpose and every sentence carries non-redundant value, such as the warning to read authors before treating a result and the explanation of scan vs. edition. For a 13-parameter tool, this density is appropriate.

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?

Given the rich input schema, output schema, and annotations, the description fully covers the two search modes, sorting rationale, data-quality caveats, scan/archive handling, and sibling tool connections. It provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Even though schema coverage is high (85%), the description adds important semantics: it distinguishes query from criteria, explains that criteria combine, clarifies subject can carry prizes/lists, and describes how sort options like newest/oldest rank on a potentially unreliable field. This goes well beyond the schema descriptions.

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: 'Find a book on Open Library, the Internet Archive's catalogue of works.' It clearly differentiates from siblings by explaining that search_inside finds a phrase within a work and that this tool identifies a work, while comparing it to the item catalogue.

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?

It explicitly states when to use 'query' vs. 'criteria' ('Pass query when you know what you are looking for... Pass the criteria instead when you do not'), explains when to use sort by rating/readers, and names alternates: use search_inside for phrases and pass archive_identifiers to get_item. This gives clear decision guidance.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

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/smeet666/mcp-archiveorg'

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