Check whether NMLP picks up books at a given five-digit US ZIP code. Returns coverage tier (core_metro, metro, near_metro, drop_off_only, out_of_area), typical pickup window in days, minimum quantity, and a human-readable message. ALWAYS call this BEFORE nmlp_schedule_pickup.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| zip | Yes | Five-digit US ZIP code |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. Describes return fields (coverage tier, pickup window, min quantity, message) and implies it is a read-only check. Lacks mention of potential side effects, but likely none.
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 sentences: first explains purpose and output, second gives usage instruction. No wasted words, front-loaded with main purpose.
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 check tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully explains the return fields and usage context (prerequisite for scheduling). Complete.
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 coverage is 100% with a clear description and pattern for the 'zip' parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline of 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?
Clearly states the verb 'check' and the resource 'coverage at a five-digit US ZIP code'. Distinguishes itself from the sibling 'nmlp_schedule_pickup' by explicitly stating it should be called before that tool.
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?
Provides explicit instruction to always call this before nmlp_schedule_pickup, indicating its role as a prerequisite. No explicit when-not-to-use, but the context is clear.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, from specific identifier lookups (CD, vinyl, LCCN) to donation logistics and first-edition identification. The general resolver (nmlp_resolve) is complementary and well-differentiated.
All tools follow a consistent pattern: 'nmlp_' prefix with descriptive snake_case names (e.g., nmlp_check_coverage, nmlp_identify_first_edition). There is no mixing of conventions.
At 16 tools, the count is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range, but each tool serves a non-trivial and distinct function across book identification, media lookup, and donation management, justifying the number.
The server covers core identification workflows (first editions, number lines, publisher rules, various identifiers) and donation operations, but lacks appraisal/pricing tools and more granular donation status tracking, which are minor gaps.