Fetch a Goodreads book's featured reviews sorted by like count, including reviewer, rating, text, date, and spoiler flags for quick insight.
Get a Goodreads book's featured reviews. Returns a book's featured reviews (reviewer, rating, text, date, like/comment counts, spoiler flag), sorted by like count.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Goodreads book id | |
| limit | No | Max reviews, default 10, max 50 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well for a read-only tool: it discloses that reviews are 'featured', lists the returned fields, and specifies sorting by like count. It omits rate limits or authentication needs, but those are less critical for a simple retrieval endpoint.
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 definition is compact and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence. There is minor redundancy in repeating 'featured reviews' in the second sentence, but it efficiently adds return fields and sorting information.
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?
Given the simple complexity, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description supplies enough context: it says what is returned, which fields are included, and how results are ordered. It does not discuss when to use this tool versus related book tools, but otherwise it is complete for an agent to call it correctly.
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 both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning about the 'id' or 'limit' parameters beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Get') and resource ('Goodreads book's featured reviews'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It distinguishes itself from generic book-detail siblings by specifying 'featured reviews' rather than metadata or editions.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as goodreads_book or other review sources. It only implies usage by stating what it returns; there are no exclusions or named alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.