Retrieve a Goodreads author profile by ID, including bio, birth/death dates, website, genres, photo, and aggregate rating stats.
Get a Goodreads author. Returns a Goodreads author profile: bio, birth/death dates, website, genres, photo, and aggregate rating stats.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Goodreads author id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. "Get...Returns" clearly signals a read-only lookup with no side effects, and it enumerates the returned profile contents (valuable given there is no output schema). However, nothing is said about authentication needs, error/invalid-id behavior, or rate limits.
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, front-loaded with the core action before the return enumeration. The field list is compact and every element earns its place by compensating for the absent output schema.
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 simple one-param lookup with no output schema, describing the returned fields is the right move and is done well. But the description omits how to obtain the author id (e.g. via goodreads_search) and offers no sibling differentiation, leaving a real gap for an agent navigating ~40 goodreads tools.
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% and there is a single required parameter ("id"), so the schema already documents it. The description adds no format or sourcing detail beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 a Goodreads author") and enumerates the profile contents returned (bio, dates, website, genres, photo, rating stats). This is clear and richer than a title restatement, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings like goodreads_author_books, goodreads_author_quotes, or goodreads_search.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no mention of when this tool is preferable to goodreads_search or goodreads_author_books. It only describes what the tool is, leaving selection entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.