Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
itu-mcp

itu-mcp

by yatuk
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

İTÜ Library Item

library_get_item
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a public Sirsi library record and its copy list using an SD_ILS record ID from library_search. Copy status may be unknown because it loads asynchronously.

Instructions

Read a public Sirsi record and copy list using the SD_ILS: ID returned by library_search. Copy status loaded asynchronously may be unknown.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "record_id": "<record_id>"
    },
    "name": "library_get_item"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
record_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.2.1

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world traits. The description adds genuinely new information beyond those: 'Copy status loaded asynchronously may be unknown,' warning the agent that a field may be absent. That async caveat is real added value, though nothing more is disclosed about rate limits or auth.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler; the core action and ID source are front-loaded, and the async caveat is appended where it belongs.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a one-parameter read tool, the description covers purpose, ID provenance, and the async caveat adequately, though it doesn't clarify the relationship to library_check_availability.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It does meaningfully explain the single record_id: its format ('SD_ILS:') and provenance (returned by library_search), which the bare schema does not convey.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('Read a public Sirsi record and copy list') and names the ID source (library_search), so an agent knows it retrieves item details. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the nearby library_check_availability sibling, so it falls just short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'using the SD_ILS: ID returned by library_search' gives a clear prerequisite and workflow context (call this after search). No explicit when-not or alternative routing is stated, so it lacks the exclusions that would earn a 5.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools