Retrieve one Audible category node and its immediate children by ID, so you can avoid fetching the full category tree when only one node is needed.
Get one Audible category node. Returns one Audible category node and its immediate children by id — cheaper than fetching the full tree from GET /audible/categories when only one node is needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Audible category id from GET /audible/categories |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.16.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the return shape ('one category node and its immediate children'), which is genuinely useful for a tool with no output schema, but says nothing about auth, rate limits, or pagination for children. Solid but not exhaustive.
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?
Two tight sentences, zero waste, with the core action front-loaded and the cost/routing rationale trailing. Every clause earns its place.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is fetched and what comes back (node plus immediate children). Minor gaps remain around child pagination or depth limits, but nothing blocks correct invocation.
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 coverage is 100% and the single 'id' parameter is already documented in the schema as 'Audible category id from GET /audible/categories'. The description's 'by id' adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get one Audible category node') and explicitly contrasts scope with the sibling audible_categories ('the full tree from GET /audible/categories'). An agent can distinguish this single-node fetch from the full-tree fetch without opening either schema.
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?
Gives an explicit when-to-use condition ('when only one node is needed') and names the alternative route (GET /audible/categories) plus a cost rationale. This is exactly the routing guidance an agent needs between this tool and its tree-level sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.