mcp-open-library

Get author details

get_author_info

Read-only

Retrieve detailed author information using an Open Library Author Key such as OL23919A. Use the unique ID to look up and verify author details.

Instructions

Get detailed information for a specific author using their Open Library Author Key (e.g. OL23919A).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "author_key": "<author_key>"
    },
    "name": "get_author_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`author_key`	Yes	The Open Library key for the author (e.g., OL23919A).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.2.1Aug 19, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / author_key / minLength
```
Added value: +1
```
- addedInput schema / properties / author_key / pattern
```
Added value: +"^OL\\d+A$"
```
First observedv1.0.0Aug 14, 2025

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds little beyond that—just the example key format which is already in schema. No mention of error handling, return structure, or edge cases. With annotations providing the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate as it adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One sentence, clear and direct, no fluff. Front-loaded with the action.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple: one parameter, safe read operation, no output schema. The description provides sufficient context for basic use, but could specify what 'detailed information' includes or mention error behavior. However, given the simplicity, it's fairly complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema covers the parameter fully with description and pattern. Description repeats the example but adds no new semantic information. With 100% schema description coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

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 'detailed information for a specific author' using the Open Library key. It distinguishes from siblings like get_book_by_id and get_authors_by_name by focusing on the author key lookup.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage when a known author key is available, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this vs. alternatives like get_authors_by_name. It provides context (the key) but no exclusion criteria.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server