get_library_bookReturn one library row plus its structured profile (thesis, model, instrument summary) when a sidecar exists.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| libraryId | Yes | Stable library id from list_library_books or search_library. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | Yes | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| author | Yes | ||
| profile | Yes | ||
| engGuides | Yes | ||
| libraryId | Yes | ||
| hasProfile | Yes | ||
| api_version | Yes | ||
| canonicalUrl | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive nature. The description adds the key behavioral nuance that the structured profile is included conditionally, only 'when a sidecar exists,' which is useful beyond what annotations provide.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the action, the target, and the conditional behavior without waste. Every clause earns its place.
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 get-by-id tool with a rich output schema, annotations, and a well-described parameter, the description is nearly complete. The only minor gap is not stating what happens when no sidecar exists, though the conditional phrasing and output schema likely cover it.
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% and the libraryId parameter already has a clear description. The tool description does not add additional parameter-level meaning, 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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('one library row plus its structured profile'), and names the profile components. The 'one' qualifier clearly distinguishes this get-by-id tool from the list and search siblings.
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?
Usage is implied rather than explicit: the description implies this is for retrieving a single known book's profile, and the parameter schema mentions ids come from list_library_books or search_library. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over search_library or list_library_books.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.