Look up a publisher's first-edition identification conventions — how that house designated a first printing across eras (stated-edition wording, number lines, colophons, dated printings). Covers 850+ publishers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| publisher | Yes | Publisher or imprint name (e.g. 'Alfred A. Knopf', 'Viking', 'Faber & Faber'). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns identification conventions across eras and notes the coverage scope. However, it does not describe the response format, error handling, or required permissions, though the tool's behavior is fairly straightforward.
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 two concise, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence states the action and key details, and the second adds scope. There is no redundant information.
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 required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete. It could mention what happens if the publisher is not found, but overall it provides sufficient context for effective use.
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 coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'publisher' already well-described in the schema. The description adds context about coverage (850+ publishers) but does not add additional semantic meaning for the parameter beyond examples, earning a baseline score of 3.
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 looks up a publisher's first-edition identification conventions, specifying the types of conventions (stated-edition wording, number lines, colophons, dated printings) and coverage (850+ publishers). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'nmlp_identify_first_edition' which identifies a specific book, and 'nmlp_decode_number_line' which decodes a number line.
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 needing to know a publisher's identification conventions, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it.
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.