Skip to main content
Glama

Find a person in the BnF authority file

search_authors
Read-onlyIdempotent

Find a person in the Bibliothèque nationale de France authority file by name, returning the identifier used by other tools. Distinguish between multiple records using birth year, death year, and role.

Instructions

Find a person in the Bibliothèque nationale de France authority file by name, and get the identifier the other tools take. This matches the name the BnF records, so it takes a surname, a full name or both names in either order. It does not read biographies, so it cannot find a person from what they wrote or what they did. It reads the person records and nothing else: an organisation, a conference or a place is outside it, and an answer holding no row says nothing about those. The match is letter for letter, so a name written with other accents or under another transliteration is a different search: try the spellings a library would use before concluding the BnF holds nobody of that name. Several rows can carry one name: the BnF keeps more than one authority record for some people, and many people share a name. Read 'birth_year', 'death_year' and 'role' to tell them apart, and show the caller the choice rather than picking one. Rows come back ordered by the address of the record, which is not an order of relevance. That order is the one the pages are cut along, so paging through a search reaches every match once. One search reads a fixed window of the index. 'index_window_full' says whether that window came back full: when it did, names sit past what was read, 'has_more' being false says where the reading stopped, and another reading of the same search can bring back other rows. Narrow the name to reach further.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesThe person's name, such as 'Rimbaud' or 'Arthur Rimbaud'.
pageNo
limitNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesThe name asked for.
pageYes
notesYes
authorsYes
has_moreYesWhether the endpoint held at least one further row beyond this page, within the window the search read off the index. Read it alongside 'index_window_full': false on a full window says where the reading stopped rather than that the file holds nobody else.
retrieved_atYesWhen these metadata were read from data.bnf.fr, as an ISO 8601 instant. The BnF licence asks for this date to be stated wherever the metadata are shown, so repeat it alongside the source.
words_searchedYesThe terms the index required, each of which has to appear in the name. A word is cut at an apostrophe and at a hyphen before the index sees it, so a name written as one word can appear here as two, and a record carrying the pieces apart is a match.
index_window_fullYesWhether the fixed window this search reads off the index came back full. True means records carrying these words sit past what was read, so the rows here are a part of the matches and another reading can bring back other rows. False means the window held everything that matched. Null when the endpoint stated no occupancy, which claims nothing either way.
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, destructive=false), the description discloses critical behavior: match is letter-for-letter, accents/transliterations matter, multiple records can share a name, results are ordered by record address (not relevance), and pagination behavior is explained via 'index_window_full' and 'has_more'. It even notes that another reading may yield different rows (open-world behavior consistent with the annotation). This far exceeds the baseline and provides rich, non-obvious context.

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 lengthy but every sentence adds a distinct, essential caveat—scope exclusions, exact matching, multiple records, ordering, pagination. It is front-loaded with purpose and then logically works through constraints. There is no redundancy or fluff; each sentence earns its place, making the length appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 tool's complexity (fuzzy name matching, ambiguous results, paging quirks), the description covers all essential aspects: what the tool matches, what it excludes, how to disambiguate results ('birth_year', 'death_year', 'role'), how ordering works, and how to interpret pagination flags. An output schema exists, so field details are not required in the description, but the description still explains the meaning of key fields. This is a complete, self-contained guide for an agent.

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?

The schema covers only the `name` parameter (33% coverage), and the description compensates heavily for that by explaining accepted formats ('surname, a full name or both names in either order') and the exact matching behavior. For `page` and `limit`, it does not explicitly describe them, but it explains paging semantics ('paging through a search reaches every match once', 'One search reads a fixed window of the index') which indirectly informs how the parameters behave. Given the low schema coverage, this is a strong compensation, though the pagination parameters are not directly mapped to their fields.

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 person in the Bibliothèque nationale de France authority file by name, and get the identifier the other tools take.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings by stating it only searches persons, not organisations, conferences, or places, and explicitly says it does not read biographies. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and sets it apart from similar tools like search_works.

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?

The description tells when to use the tool (to get an identifier for use with other tools) and when not to use it (not for biographies, not for non-persons). It provides actionable alternatives, such as trying different spellings or transliterations a library would use. It also advises the caller to present multiple matches to the user rather than auto-selecting, which is a clear usage guideline.

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-databnf'

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