get_library_workReturns one compensation library work's bibliographic record and (when profiled) its thesis.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| libraryId | Yes | Library catalog id (e.g. lib933f3afbe567c9ab). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tags | Yes | ||
| year | Yes | ||
| pitch | Yes | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| author | Yes | ||
| logline | Yes | ||
| contract | Yes | ||
| libraryId | 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 establish the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it returns a single record, and the thesis is included only 'when profiled,' which helps set expectations for conditional output. No contradiction with 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 conveys the core behavior and the conditional thesis inclusion without unnecessary detail. It is front-loaded, scannable, and appropriately sized for this simple tool.
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?
With one parameter, full schema coverage, safe-read annotations, and an output schema present, the description is nearly complete. The only slight gap is that 'when profiled' is not elaborated, but the output schema likely clarifies the shape, so this is acceptable.
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?
The schema covers the only parameter fully with a clear description and example. The tool description does not add further parameter meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies because schema coverage is 100%.
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 a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('one compensation library work's bibliographic record'), and notes the conditional thesis inclusion. This distinguishes it from search_library, which is for finding works rather than retrieving a single record by ID.
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 implies usage: call this when you need a single library work's bibliographic record by its library ID. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over siblings such as search_library or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.