get_seriesA book series in reading order: every book with its position and publication year, and whether the series is complete. Suits "what order do the X books go in", "what is book 3 of X" and "is the next X book out". Takes the series name, or a series id from get_book or what_to_read_next.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | A series id, a URL slug, or the series name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / id / descriptionAdded value: +"A series id, a URL slug, or the series name"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description then adds real behavioral value by disclosing the returned structure (ordered books with position/publication year plus a completeness signal), which the agent could not infer from annotations alone. It does not cover error behavior for an unknown series, which keeps it at 4.
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?
Two sentences with no filler: the first front-loads the return shape, the second front-loads the accepted input and its source. 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?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the response and it does so adequately (ordered books, position, year, completeness). It omits edge cases such as unknown series names and whether long series are paginated, a minor gap for a one-parameter read tool.
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 single parameter's description already lists id, URL slug, or name, so the baseline is 3. The description goes slightly beyond by indicating the id can be obtained from get_book or what_to_read_next, giving the agent provenance for valid inputs, but adds no format or validation nuance.
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+resource and enumerates exactly what is returned: every book in reading order with position, publication year, and a completeness flag. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_book (single book) and what_to_read_next (recommendation), since it is the only tool that returns an ordered series list.
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?
It gives concrete user intents that fit this tool ('what order do the X books go in', 'what is book 3 of X', 'is the next X book out') and tells the agent where to source the input id (get_book or what_to_read_next). There is no explicit when-not guidance or statement of what to use instead for adjacent needs, so it falls short of a full 5.
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.