Skip to main content
Glama

Northwestern University Libraries Digital Collections API

by io.github.nulib

View Search Results

view-search-results
Read-onlyIdempotent

View results from the search-works tool in an interactive viewer.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoThe page of search results to return
queryNoA natural language query. Best for exploratory / conceptual searches.
fieldsNoStructured field search. Best when searching for specific known items or values, or for narrowing a search by specifying particular fields to search within.
max_resultsNoThe maximum number of search results to return per page
public_onlyNoOnly include publicly available works in search results

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
iiifContentUrlYesA URL to a IIIF manifest or collection

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "iiifContentUrl": {
+      "description": "A URL to a IIIF manifest or collection",
+      "format": "uri",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "iiifContentUrl"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description only needed to add behavioral context. Instead, it says the tool 'View[s] results from the search-works tool in an interactive viewer,' while the schema description says it 'Search[es] for items in the Digital Collections' using queries and field filters. This mismatch misleads the agent about what the tool actually does and omits behavior like pagination, default result limits, and public-only filtering.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the action ('View results'), though it is too terse to convey the tool's actual search behavior.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Despite a rich schema, detailed nested parameters, and helpful annotations, the description is not complete enough for an agent to decide when to use this tool. It fails to explain how this relates to the sibling 'search' tool, whether it requires prior results, or that the input schema performs a new search. The vagueness is particularly damaging given the tool's complex param structure.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema provides 100% parameter description coverage, including detailed descriptions for all five top-level parameters and nested field properties. The tool description adds no parameter-specific semantics, but the schema already carries the full burden, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description names a specific action and resource ('View results from the search-works tool') and is not a tautology. However, 'interactive viewer' is vague, and the tool's input schema actually describes a search operation ('Search for items in the Digital Collections'), so the purpose is unclear and not distinguished from sibling tools like 'search' or 'view-work'.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only references a 'search-works tool,' implying some prior search step, but does not state whether this tool should be used after searching, instead of 'search,' or when viewing existing results. This is especially confusing because the schema indicates the tool itself performs searches.

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

All Northwestern University Libraries Digital Collections API toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clear boundaries: search and similarity-search are distinct query modes, and view-* tools are explicitly for interactive viewing while get-work and list-collections return metadata. However, get-work vs view-work and list-collections vs view-collection could cause mild confusion, and view-search-results refers to a 'search-works' tool that is actually named 'search'.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names mostly follow a lowercase hyphenated verb-object pattern like get-work, list-collections, and view-work. However, 'search' lacks an object, 'similarity-search' is formatted as a compound noun rather than a verb phrase, and the description for view-search-results references a non-existent 'search-works' tool name.

Tool Count5/5

Eight tools is a well-scoped set for a digital collections API. Each tool serves a distinct function covering search, retrieval, similarity, and interactive viewing without feeling bloated or sparse.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the core read-only workflows: searching, similarity matching, retrieving work metadata, listing collections, and viewing results interactively. A minor gap is the lack of a direct get-collection metadata tool separate from list-collections, but agents can likely work around this.

Resources