An MCP server for searching 国立国会図書館サーチ (NDL Search), operated by the National Diet Library of Japan, over the SRU searchRetrieve interface.
Five tools with consistent naming (verb_noun pattern: ndl_search_*) and adequate descriptions (120-180 chars each). All tools have identical input schemas with query (string) and max_records (integer, 1-100). Schemas are present and properly typed. However, parameter descriptions lack detail on format/constraints, output schemas are undocumented, and error handling guidance is absent. No tool annotations (readOnlyHint, etc.). Descriptions meet minimum length but lack LLM-optimization detail on WHEN to use each tool vs. alternatives.
Search all five NDL-created data providers (iss-ndl-opac, iss-ndl-opac-national, zassaku, zassaku-online, ndl-dl-open) for bibliographic records matching a query.
Search the NDL Digital Collections Open Data (ndl-dl-open) for digitized materials.
Search NDL holdings (iss-ndl-opac) for bibliographic records in the National Diet Library's collection.
Search the Japanese National Bibliography (iss-ndl-opac-national) for bibliographic records.
Search the NDL Japanese Periodicals Index (zassaku and zassaku-online) for journal article records.
Output schemas undocumented. Tools return SRU XML responses but LLMs cannot infer result structure (fields, types, pagination). Forces agents to guess at response shape and risks parsing errors.
Parameter descriptions lack actionable constraints. 'max_records' states default and max but not minimum, format, or behavior when exceeded. 'query' has no guidance on syntax, length limits, or special characters.
No tool annotations. Tools are read-only but lack readOnlyHint metadata. Agents cannot determine idempotency or safety without explicit hints.
Inferred effective spec: <=2025-11-25.
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-23 | D | 53 | <=2025-11-25 | v2 |
Tool descriptions do not explain WHEN to use each variant. All five tools search NDL data but distinctions (national bibliography vs. holdings vs. periodicals vs. digital) are unclear. LLMs may pick wrong tool.
No error handling guidance. Tools may fail (rate limit, timeout, invalid query) but descriptions do not explain recovery steps or error categories (retryable vs. user-fixable).