Get the comparison matrix of every Albuquerque book donation option (NMLP, Goodwill, Savers, Better World Books, Friends of APL, Habitat ReStore, regional pulper).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states it returns a 'comparison matrix' and lists included options, but does not disclose any behavioral traits like authentication needs or output format. Adequate for a simple no-parameter tool.
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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word adds value, no redundancy.
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 no parameters and no output schema, the description fully conveys the purpose and scope by listing all donation options. It is complete and self-contained.
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?
There are no parameters, so baseline 4 applies. The description does not need to add parameter info since the input schema is empty and coverage is 100%.
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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'comparison matrix of every Albuquerque book donation option', listing specific options. It distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on book identification, archives, etc.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. However, the description implies this tool is for comparing donation options, and given the sibling tool names, it is the only one relevant to donations.
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.