get_styleReads the book’s style file: every part of a person’s page, with its size, place, typeface, colour and alignment, what each part means, the limits the print rules keep, and the people who have pages.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| book | Yes | The book’s handle. | |
| person | No | A name as it prints on their pages, for that person’s pages as they print. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / book / descriptionPrevious value: -"The handle start_book gave you."New value: +"The book’s handle."Input schema / properties / person / descriptionPrevious value: -"A name as it prints on their pages, to read that person’s pages as they print."New value: +"A name as it prints on their pages, for that person’s pages as they print."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable context about the returned data—style attributes, meanings, print-rule limits, and the people who have pages—though it remains vague about how the optional 'person' parameter affects the 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 a single sentence that front-loads the core action, but it is somewhat wordy and includes vague phrases like 'what each part means' and 'the limits the print rules keep'. A tighter structure would improve clarity.
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 low-complexity read tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the style file contains. It still leaves minor ambiguity about how the optional 'person' parameter changes the output scope, but the schema covers parameter details sufficiently.
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 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description’s mention of 'a person’s page' hints that the 'person' parameter filters to that person’s style, but adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 'Reads' and the resource 'the book’s style file', and it enumerates the content returned (size, place, typeface, colour, alignment, meanings, limits, people). This distinguishes it from the write-oriented sibling set_style, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_style or preview_pages, nor any prerequisites or exclusion conditions. The agent must infer its role as the read counterpart to set_style.
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.