List paginated quotes attributed to a Goodreads author, including quote text, tags, like counts, and credited book details.
List a Goodreads author's attributed quotes. Returns an author's paginated attributed-quotes list (quote text, tags, like count, and — when the quote is credited to a specific book — that book's title, id, and work id).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Goodreads author id | |
| page | No | 1-based page number, default 1 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return payload in detail (quote text, tags, like count, and credited book title/id/work id) and notes pagination, which is genuinely useful. It omits any mention of auth needs, rate limits, or ordering behavior, so it is adequate but not rich.
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 sentences, purpose front-loaded ahead of return-field detail, with no filler. Slightly redundant in restating 'attributed quotes' twice, but tight overall.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what the paginated result contains. For a simple two-parameter read tool this is close to complete; only ordering and pagination limits are unstated.
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% (id and page are both documented in the schema). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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 ('List a Goodreads author's attributed quotes'), immediately distinguishing it from siblings like goodreads_author (profile) and goodreads_author_books (bibliography). An agent can tell what this returns without opening the 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?
No when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as goodreads_author or goodreads_search. The use case is inferable from the name, but nothing tells the agent when this is the right sibling to pick over another.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.