list_library_booksList books from the EngineerPro 118-book engineering library slice with lane tags and profile availability.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lane | No | Filter by eng_guides lane, e.g. software-engineering. | |
| limit | No | Max rows (default 100, max 500). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lane | No | ||
| books | Yes | ||
| count | Yes | ||
| limit | Yes | ||
| api_version | Yes | ||
| total_matching | 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 declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description agrees by describing a read-only listing operation. The description adds modest context by specifying the 118-book slice and mentioning lane tags and profile availability, but it does not disclose other behavior such as ordering or pagination. Given the annotations and simple nature of the tool, this is adequate but not rich.
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 a single front-loaded sentence that states the action, resource, and output features with no filler. It is concise while still providing the essential scope information an agent needs.
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 list tool with two optional parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema, the description plus annotations are nearly sufficient. The only minor gap is that 'profile availability' is not expanded, but this is likely clarified by the output schema, so nothing essential to invoking the tool is missing.
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?
Input schema coverage is 100%, describing both the lane and limit parameters fully. The description adds no meaningful parameter-level detail beyond hinting at lane tags, but with complete schema coverage the baseline 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 uses the specific verb 'List' with a clearly defined resource, the 'EngineerPro 118-book engineering library slice', and names the included fields (lane tags, profile availability). This distinguishes it from get_library_book, which fetches a single book, and search_library, which searches, so an agent can identify the intended operation.
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 does not say when to use this tool versus search_library or get_library_book. There are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternative tool mentions. The intended usage is only implied by the verb 'List' and the slice name, leaving the agent to infer tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.