Find ebooks by search term across Apple Books storefronts and return normalized title data via Apple's public iTunes Search API.
Search Apple Books titles. Returns normalized Apple Books ebooks from Apple's public iTunes Search API.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | Result language tag | |
| page | No | Search page number (1-based) | |
| term | Yes | Search term | |
| limit | No | Number of books per page | |
| country | No | Two-letter storefront country code |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful context by stating results come from 'Apple's public iTunes Search API' and are 'normalized,' implying a public, read-only source. However, it fails to disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or the concrete shape of normalized output, which are material for a search 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 two tight sentences with the primary action front-loaded ('Search Apple Books titles'). Every word earns its place—'public iTunes Search API' and 'normalized' add informational value without 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 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is only high-level. It gestures at return values via 'normalized Apple Books ebooks' but omits pagination semantics for page/limit and the filtering effect of lang/country, leaving noticeable gaps for an agent invoking 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description marginally links 'Search Apple Books titles' to the term parameter, but it does not explain how lang, country, page, or limit interact or add meaning beyond their existing schema descriptions.
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 uses a specific verb ('Search') with a clear resource ('Apple Books titles') and adds scope by specifying 'normalized Apple Books ebooks,' which subtly distinguishes it from the sibling apple_books_audiobook_search. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling alternatives, such as apple_books_book or apple_books_author.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its alternatives. It does not mention apple_books_audiobook_search for audiobooks, apple_books_book for specific titles, or any exclusions. Usage is only implied by the generic 'Search' phrase, with no context about when this search is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.