publishersBrowse the Comic Vine publisher list (Marvel, DC, Image, Dark Horse, etc.). Filter by name; paginate with limit/offset. Returns publisher IDs and names useful for filtering characters, volumes, and issues by publisher.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sort | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| filter | No | name:foo,id:1,2 | |
| offset | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool as readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe, non-mutating behavior. The description adds that it 'browses' and 'returns' data, consistent with annotations. It does not provide additional behavioral details such as rate limits, authentication requirements, or external API calls. Given the strong annotation coverage, this is adequate but adds minimal value beyond annotations.
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 concise at two sentences. The first sentence immediately names the tool's purpose with concrete examples (Marvel, DC), and the second explains parameters and output value. Every word contributes meaning; no filler or redundancy. The structure is front-loaded and efficient.
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 list-browsing tool with robust annotations (read-only, idempotent) and an output schema, the description covers the essentials: what the tool does, how to filter and paginate, and what it returns. It explains the utility for downstream filtering, which is sufficient given the tool's low complexity. No significant gaps remain.
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 description coverage is only 25% (only the 'filter' parameter has a description). The description clarifies that 'filter' targets publisher names (and IDs per schema example), and that 'limit' and 'offset' control pagination. However, the 'sort' parameter is not mentioned, leaving its purpose unclear. The description partially compensates for low schema coverage but still leaves gaps, earning a mid-range score.
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: browsing the Comic Vine publisher list. It specifies the resource (publishers like Marvel, DC), actions (browse, filter by name, paginate), and output (IDs and names). The verb 'Browse' and the examples of well-known publishers immediately communicate scope, and the tool is distinct from sibling tools like 'character' or 'issues'.
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 when to use this tool: when you need publisher IDs/names to filter characters, volumes, or issues. It also mentions pagination and filtering, guiding usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternative tools like 'character' or 'issues', which could further clarify context. The guidance is clear but lacks exclusions.
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.
Many tools have overlapping purposes, especially the Pipeworx utilities (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, etc.). The comic tools are distinct but the large number of similar generally-purpose tools creates confusion across the set.
Comic tools follow a consistent noun pattern (character, characters, issue, issues) but Pipeworx tools mix verb_phrase (ask_pipeworx), noun_phrase (entity_profile), and composite names (scan_competitor_ai_presence). No single convention dominates.
The server name 'Comicvine' suggests a focused comic book reference, yet 30 of 40 tools are unrelated Pipeworx services (company financials, prediction markets, subscriptions, etc.). This is a severe scope mismatch.
The comic-related tools cover characters, issues, volumes, publishers, and creators reasonably well, but the server's overall purpose is diluted by including many non-comic tools that don't form a coherent surface. The comic subset is complete, but the full set is not.