Fetch one stored Goodreads author profile by dataset record ID; a missing record returns 404. Use datasets_goodreads_authors_search to discover an author record, or datasets_goodreads_authors_facets to inspect indexed genres.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Goodreads author id, e.g. 153394. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | The tool result payload (shape varies per tool; see each tool's docs resource). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses the 404 behavior for missing records, which goes beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations. It doesn't mention response caching, rate limits, or output shape, but the 404 disclosure is the key operational detail and output schema covers the rest.
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?
One tightly-packed sentence that front-loads the operation and error behavior, then a second sentence for routing. No filler.
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?
Complete for a single-ID lookup with an output schema: covers what it returns, the 404 case, and how to find the ID via siblings. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is absent.
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 100% and the param description already documents the id format (e.g. 153394). The description adds 'dataset record ID' framing but no syntax beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch one stored Goodreads author profile') and explicitly scopes it to lookup by dataset record ID. The sibling-tool routing sentence makes its role distinct from datasets_goodreads_authors_search and datasets_goodreads_authors_facets.
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?
Explicitly names two alternatives and the condition for each: use search to discover an author record, use facets to inspect indexed genres. This is exactly the when-to-use guidance an agent needs.
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.
