Skip to main content
Glama
telota

bbaw-dse-mcp

by telota

sd_filter_letters

Filter letters by sender, receiver, place, and time period to focus your correspondence analysis.

Instructions

Filter letters by sender, receiver, place, and time period.

PURPOSE: Filter letters by specific criteria (FAST - uses cache)

WHEN TO USE:

  • User asks "letters from/to person X"

  • User asks "letters from Berlin"

  • User asks "letters between 1810 and 1815"

  • For correspondence network analyses

WHEN NOT TO USE:

  • For keyword search → use search_by_keyword()

  • For register search → use search_register()

Args: sender: Person ID of sender (from register, e.g., "S0003676") receiver: Person ID of receiver (from register, e.g., "S0003677") send_place: Place ID or name of sending location (e.g., "S0000065" or "Berlin") not_before: Earliest date (ISO 8601, e.g., "1810-01-01") not_after: Latest date (ISO 8601, e.g., "1815-12-31") max_results: Maximum results ctx: FastMCP Context

Returns: List of Letter objects

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
senderNo
receiverNo
not_afterNo
not_beforeNo
send_placeNo
max_resultsNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It notes the tool is 'FAST - uses cache' and states the return type (List of Letter objects). However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only and non-mutating, though 'filter' strongly implies it does not modify data. This is a minor gap.

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 well-structured with sections (PURPOSE, WHEN TO USE, WHEN NOT TO USE, Args, Returns). Every sentence adds value, and the format is scannable. It is appropriately sized for a tool with six parameters and clear exclusions.

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?

Despite having no annotations and low schema coverage, the description provides complete information: purpose, usage examples, exclusions, parameter semantics, and return type. The output schema exists and covers return structure, so the description need not explain Letter objects further. It is complete for correct selection and invocation.

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 compensate. It does so effectively by explaining each parameter with types and examples (e.g., sender: 'Person ID of sender (from register, e.g., S0003676)', send_place: 'Place ID or name of sending location'). This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw 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 clearly states 'Filter letters by sender, receiver, place, and time period' – a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes from siblings by referencing alternative tools for keyword and register searches. The purpose is immediately understandable and unambiguous.

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 includes explicit 'WHEN TO USE' and 'WHEN NOT TO USE' sections with concrete example queries and names of alternative tools (e.g., search_by_keyword, search_register). This provides excellent guidance for an agent to select this tool over siblings.

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/telota/bbaw-dse-mcp'

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