books_mineWhich books this member holds, and where each book's names are listed publicly.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "books_mine"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only a hint about returned content (holdings plus public listing locations) with no mention of pagination, format, or what 'listed publicly' entails.
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?
A single short sentence, but its second half is poorly worded and forces the reader to re-read rather than front-loading the essential point. It is brief without being clear.
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 and no parameters, the description carries the whole burden of explaining return content, and it only gestures at that with an opaque phrase about public name listings. It is marginally sufficient but leaves the actual response shape unclear.
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?
Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No parameter-level confusion is possible.
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?
It conveys the resource (the member's book holdings) but uses no verb and the second clause, 'where each book's names are listed publicly', is ambiguous about what is actually returned or where. An agent can guess it lists the caller's books, but the scope is only implied.
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?
No indication of when to use this versus a similar sibling such as overdrive_mine, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer the distinction from the names alone.
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.