volumeComic Vine single series/volume detail: name, start year, publisher, issue count, deck description.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, etc., so the safety and idempotency are covered. The description adds no new behavioral context beyond the returned fields, but does not contradict 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the resource and lists output fields. No unnecessary words, though adding parameter info would improve structure without significant bloat.
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 tool with one required parameter and an output schema, the description covers the output well but neglects the input. This gap makes it slightly incomplete for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.
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 0%, placing full burden on the description. However, the description does not explain the sole parameter 'id' or its purpose (e.g., 'Comic Vine volume ID'). The example provides minimal context, but the description fails to clarify what the id represents.
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 retrieves Comic Vine single series/volume detail, listing specific fields (name, start year, publisher, issue count, deck description). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'volumes' which likely handles multiple volumes.
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 for a single volume but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling 'volumes' or other similar tools. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
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.