get_workGet metadata and opening passages for a specific work.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| author | Yes | ||
| work_id | Yes | ||
| max_passages | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | ||
| date | No | ||
| note | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| author | No | ||
| summary | No | ||
| work_id | No | ||
| category | No | ||
| passages | No | ||
| author_slug | No | ||
| short_title | No | ||
| passage_count | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's safe. The description adds that it returns metadata and opening passages, which is consistent and provides additional context beyond the annotations.
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?
One sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words or repetition.
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?
The output schema covers return values, but the description lacks parameter explanations and usage guidance. For a tool with 3 parameters and many siblings, this is adequate but not fully complete.
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 0% and the description does not explain any parameters (author, work_id, max_passages). While the tool's purpose is clear, the agent receives no help understanding parameter meanings or constraints.
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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'work', specifying it returns 'metadata and opening passages'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_passage or get_work_context, which have different scopes.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 17 sibling tools, the description should indicate when to choose get_work over others like get_passage or get_work_context.
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.