lore_list_booksScroll the Lore. The whole books in the Library that can be read a passage at a time. Greek and Norse myth: daily readings explained line by line, plans, search, and the whole Theogony, Iliad, Odyssey and Poetic Edda read a passage at a time.
| 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 readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine domain context (Greek and Norse myth, line-by-line exposition, specific works: Theogony, Iliad, Odyssey, Poetic Edda), but says nothing about what a listing call returns or whether results are paginated.
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?
Three sentences, but 'read a passage at a time' is repeated verbatim and the feature list (plans, search, Theogony) pads rather than informs a zero-parameter listing call. It is not bloated, but the opening line is branding rather than information.
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?
The tool is simple (no params, no output schema), so little is strictly required, but for a listing endpoint the description never tells the agent what the returned book list represents or how many/major works are included. It is adequate but leaves the core question of the tool's return content unanswered.
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 tool takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies: no parameter semantics gap exists.
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 title and the phrase 'the whole books in the Library' imply a catalogue of available books, but the description never states the action plainly ('list the books available in the Lore library'). Instead it leads with the marketing phrase 'Scroll the Lore' and mixes in features belonging to siblings (daily readings, plans, search), so the actual purpose must be inferred from the name.
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?
There is no guidance on when to call this versus lore_list_readings, lore_read_book, lore_search_readings, or lore_get_card. Worse, by advertising 'daily readings', 'plans' and 'search' inside a listing tool, the description actively blurs the boundary with those siblings.
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.