check_full_viewConvenience check: given an identifier, report whether a readable (full-view) scanned copy exists on HathiTrust, how many copies are readable, and direct reading URLs. Keyless.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The identifier value, e.g. "2364951" for an OCLC number. | |
| id_type | Yes | Identifier type. One of: oclc, lccn, issn, isbn, htid, recordnumber. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "id": "9780030110405",
+ "id_type": "isbn"
+ },
+ {
+ "id": "2364951",
+ "id_type": "oclc"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds 'Keyless' meaning no API key required, and explains the output: existence, count, and URLs. These details go beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) by clarifying the no-auth aspect and the type of response.
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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose ('Convenience check') and clearly stating the action and output. No extraneous information.
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?
Given no output schema, the description adequately describes the return value (existence, count, URLs). However, it could mention handling of invalid identifiers or edge cases, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a simple check tool.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description does not add additional semantics beyond what the schema provides, 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.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: given an identifier, it checks for readable full-view scanned copies on HathiTrust and reports counts and URLs. It is specific and distinct from typical lookup tools by emphasizing 'convenience check' and 'keyless'.
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 uses 'Convenience check' which implies a lightweight use case, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like 'get_record' or 'lookup_by_identifier'. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
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.
The tool set mixes tools from multiple unrelated domains (HathiTrust, Pipeworx data platform, Polymarket, npm, etc.), making it unclear which tool to use for a given task. Overlap exists between ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded, and between several Polymarket tools, while the HathiTrust-specific tools are few and buried among many others, causing confusion.
Naming conventions are inconsistent across the tool set. Some tools use verb_noun (check_full_view, lookup_by_identifier), others use noun_verb (entity_profile, deep_research), and some are single verbs (forget, remember, subscribe). There is no predictable pattern, making it harder for an agent to guess tool names.
With 33 tools, the count is high, but only 3 (get_record, lookup_by_identifier, check_full_view) are relevant to the server's stated purpose (HathiTrust). The remaining 30 tools appear to be from unrelated domains (Pipeworx data platform, Polymarket, npm, etc.), making the tool count severely mismatched with the server name.
For the HathiTrust domain, the tool surface is severely incomplete: only three basic lookup tools with no search, browse, or management capabilities. The broader set includes tools for many other domains, but that does not compensate for the lack of coverage of the server's primary purpose.