booksSearch and list A Song of Ice and Fire books filterable by name, release date range (fromReleaseDate/toReleaseDate), with pagination (page, pageSize); returns ISBN, authors, publisher, number of pages, and character lists.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| toReleaseDate | No | ||
| fromReleaseDate | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "name": "A Game of Thrones"
+ },
+ {
+ "fromReleaseDate": "1996-01-01",
+ "page": 1,
+ "pageSize": 10,
+ "toReleaseDate": "2005-12-31"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "List of books from A Song of Ice and Fire",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by clarifying the return fields (ISBN, authors, publisher, pages, character lists) and the filtering capabilities, which are not explicitly covered by annotations. No contradictions found.
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?
The description is a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the purpose, lists all key parameters and return fields, and avoids waste. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
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 presence of an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description covers the core functionality, filters, pagination, and return values. It does not mention defaults or ordering, but these are minor given the output schema provides structural details.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's role: name for filtering by book name, fromReleaseDate/toReleaseDate for date range, and page/pageSize for pagination. It adds meaning to all 5 parameters, though it could specify formats or combination semantics.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to search and list A Song of Ice and Fire books. It distinguishes the multi-result listing tool from the singular 'book' sibling by emphasizing filtering and pagination, making the scope specific.
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 implies usage through its search/list phrasing but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like the singular 'book' tool. It lacks exclusions or direct references to sibling tools, leaving usage inference to the agent.
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.