view-workView a work from the NUL Digital Collections in an interactive viewer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| work_id | Yes | The ID of the work to view |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| iiifContentUrl | Yes | A URL to a IIIF manifest or collection |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$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"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish that the tool is read-only and non-destructive. The description adds the behavioral context that the work is shown in an interactive viewer, which is useful, but it does not explain what the interaction or output entails beyond that.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one sentence and front-loaded with the key action. It adds useful context ('NUL Digital Collections', 'interactive viewer') despite slightly echoing the tool name and title.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool with complete schema coverage, clear annotations, and an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. The main gap is the lack of explicit differentiation from sibling tools, but nothing critical is missing for a basic call.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the single required parameter work_id is already documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description gives a specific verb ('View') and a resource ('a work from the NUL Digital Collections'), and adds the distinctive detail 'in an interactive viewer.' It is clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling get-work tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get-work or view-search-results. The 'interactive viewer' phrase implies a UI-oriented use case, but no explicit context, conditions, or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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'.
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.
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.
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.