List popular Goodreads Listopia lists with their IDs, names, and categories. The catalog uses live popular lists when available and a curated fallback otherwise; pass a returned ID to goodreads_list for ranked book items, or use goodreads_search for a title or author query.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true). The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond them: the catalog "uses live popular lists when available and a curated fallback otherwise," warning the agent that results may be a fallback set rather than purely live data.
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?
Two tight sentences with zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the routing guidance. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description only needs to convey purpose, routing, and any behavioral caveat—all of which it does. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.
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 tool takes no parameters (0 params, 100% schema coverage), so there is nothing to document and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input is required.
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 ("List") and resource ("popular Goodreads Listopia lists") plus the fields returned (IDs, names, categories). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling goodreads_list (a single list's ranked items) and goodreads_search.
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 routes the agent: pass a returned ID to goodreads_list for ranked books, or use goodreads_search for a title/author query. The when-to-use-this vs alternatives relationship is spelled out with no inference required.
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.
