Search the first-edition title reference by title or author. Returns matching collectible titles with their per-title identification-page URLs. Use nmlp_identify_first_edition for the full points of one specific title.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It discloses that the tool is a read-only search returning URLs, which is adequate. However, it does not mention behavior related to the limit parameter or result pagination.
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 sentences, each adding value. No wasted words, and the alternative tool is front-loaded in the second sentence.
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?
The description covers the tool's purpose, output, and alternative usage. It lacks explicit mention of the limit parameter's effect and output details, but it is sufficient for an agent to decide when to use this tool.
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 description implicitly describes the query parameter as a title or author input, but the limit parameter is not mentioned at all. With 0% schema coverage, the description should explain both parameters.
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 searches the first-edition title reference by title or author and returns matching titles with URLs. It also distinguishes from sibling nmlp_identify_first_edition.
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 explicitly states when to use this tool (searching by title/author) and when to use an alternative (nmlp_identify_first_edition for full points of a specific title).
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.