what_to_read_nextGiven one book, what to read after it: the next books in its series, more by the same author, and books that read like it. This is the same set the book page on siftivo.com shows.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| workId | Yes | A workId from search_books, get_book, or a URL slug |
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, so no safety contradiction exists. The description adds value by specifying exactly what the tool returns: series continuations, same-author works, and similar books, plus the fact that it mirrors the siftivo book page's set.
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 core purpose is front-loaded, and the clarifying 'same set' note is compact and useful.
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?
Given the single parameter, full schema documentation, and readOnly annotations, the description provides enough to invoke the tool correctly. It explains the output composition, though it stops short of describing ordering, pagination, or limits; that is a minor gap for a recommendation 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?
The schema fully documents workId with minLength and a description naming valid sources (search_books, get_book, URL slug), so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds little beyond the phrase 'Given one book,' so 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 states a specific verb and resource: given one book, provide what to read next, listing three concrete facets (next in series, same author, similar books). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_series or get_author by combining those concerns, and the reference to the siftivo book page adds unique context.
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 makes the use case clear: when the user has a single book and wants follow-up reading suggestions. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the input schema's reference to workId from search_books/get_book and the described output scope are enough to guide an agent's selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.