Read one book's full catalog entry, including its blurb, by slug.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"slug": "<slug>"
},
"name": "get_book"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. 'Read' establishes a non-mutating operation and 'full catalog entry, including its blurb' hints at return scope, but nothing is said about behavior for an unknown slug or any auth/pagination concerns.
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 tight sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler; every clause adds information about scope or return content.
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 simple single-record read with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers what it does, the lookup key, and what is returned. Only error behavior for a missing slug is unaddressed.
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 0% and the single property is only typed as a string, but the description clarifies that the parameter is a slug used to identify the book, which is meaningful context the schema lacks. It stops short of stating slug format or uniqueness rules.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Read one book's full catalog entry') and signals single-record scope, which separates it from list_books. It does not explicitly name or contrast with a sibling, keeping it just short of a 5.
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 phrase 'one book' and 'by slug' imply this is the tool for a targeted single lookup rather than a listing or search, but the description never says when not to use it or points to list_books/search_catalog as alternatives.
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.