Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
itu-mcp

itu-mcp

by yatuk
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

İTÜ Library Loans

library_list_loans
Read-onlyIdempotent

Reads your library loan records from İTÜ systems, but this legacy tool is unavailable on the current Sirsi platform; use the official catalog account page instead.

Instructions

Legacy library loan reader. Unavailable on the current Sirsi platform; use the official catalog account page.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "library_list_loans"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

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 declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context the annotations cannot express — that the backing Sirsi platform is gone and the tool is effectively non-functional — though it doesn't say whether calls error, return empty, or still hit a stale backend.

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 sentences, no filler, and the most decision-relevant fact (unavailable) is front-loaded right after the identification clause. Nothing could be removed without losing routing value.

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?

For a zero-parameter deprecated tool with an output schema, the description supplies all an agent needs to avoid invoking it. The only gap is the runtime behavior of a call (error vs. empty result) and a concrete replacement tool name.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema is fully self-describing, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed.

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 resource and verb ('library loan reader') and immediately qualifies it as legacy, which is the key fact an agent needs. It does not name a sibling tool, so differentiation from the live loan/account tools (library_get_account, library_renew_loan) relies on the reader inferring that 'official catalog account page' maps to one of them.

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?

Explicitly instructs when NOT to use the tool ('Unavailable on the current Sirsi platform') and points to an alternative action. The alternative is described as a page rather than a sibling tool name, so the routing is clear in intent but not machine-actionable.

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