mangaFetch full Kitsu manga entry by numeric ID, returning title, synopsis, chapter/volume count, status, rating, and cover image.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "id": "1"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Kitsu JSON:API response for a single manga entry",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, fully disclosing the safety profile. The description adds value by specifying the exact return fields and the 'full' nature of the entry, plus the numeric ID constraint, going beyond the bare 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?
A single, well-structured sentence conveys all necessary purpose and output information without filler. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Fetch' and immediately specifies the resource and identifier.
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 tool's simplicity (one parameter) and the presence of output schema and annotations, the description is nearly complete. It lists the return fields and the target source (Kitsu), but does not mention edge cases like invalid IDs or network errors. However, these are not typically required for a simple fetch 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?
The schema only defines 'id' as a string with no description, leaving 0% coverage. The description compensates by clarifying that the ID must be numeric and represents a Kitsu manga entry, effectively guiding the user on the expected input value. This is helpful but does not fully elaborate on format constraints (e.g., valid ID ranges).
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 fetches a full Kitsu manga entry by numeric ID, listing specific return fields (title, synopsis, chapter/volume count, status, rating, cover image). This distinguishes it from siblings like search_manga (search by query) and top_manga (lists), and from anime (which targets anime entries).
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 when the user has a numeric manga ID and needs comprehensive details. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'by numeric ID' phrasing provides a clear context. Sibling tools like search_manga suggest an alternative path, but the description does not mention when not to use this tool.
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.