Koha MCP Server
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| KOHA_BASE_URL | Yes | The base URL of the Koha staff interface | |
| KOHA_PASSWORD | Yes | Password for Koha authentication | |
| KOHA_USERNAME | Yes | Username for Koha authentication |
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {
"listChanged": true
} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| search_booksA | Search the GBS library catalog by title, author, ISBN, subject, or keyword. Returns matching books with biblio_id for use with check_availability. |
| check_availabilityA | Check the availability of a specific book by its biblio_id. Returns item-level details including call number, location, and whether each copy is available or checked out. |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools have completely distinct purposes: search_books retrieves bibliographic records, while check_availability checks item status. There is no overlap, making tool selection unambiguous.
Both tool names follow the same verb_noun snake_case pattern: search_books and check_availability. The naming is consistent and intuitively indicates each tool's action and target.
With only 2 tools, the set feels thin but is appropriate for a narrowly scoped discovery and availability-checking service. It is not excessive, but the small number limits the server's overall utility.
The search-then-check-availability workflow is fully covered with no dead ends. A minor gap is the absence of a direct fetch-by-ID tool for full bibliographic details, but the search results likely provide sufficient information for the core use case.