Search Goodreads books by title or author using public autocomplete data, returning book results without credentials. Use query and optional limit for up to 50 matches.
Search Goodreads books. Searches Goodreads books by title/author. Credential-free public Goodreads data via the autocomplete endpoint (book results only).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | Search query | |
| limit | No | Max results, 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is credential-free, uses public data, and returns only book results. However, it does not mention rate limits, pagination behavior, or whether edits are possible (implied read-only). Some behavioral aspects are uncovered.
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 three concise sentences. First sentence states the core purpose, second elaborates on search criteria, third adds technical detail about the endpoint and data source. No redundant or wasted words.
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 2 parameters fully covered by schema and no output schema, the description explains the data source (autocomplete endpoint) and scope (books only). For a simple search tool, this is reasonably complete, though more detail on return format would be beneficial.
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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds context that search is by title/author, but this is aligned with the schema's query description. No additional value added for the limit parameter. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool searches Goodreads books by title/author, and specifies it uses the autocomplete endpoint. It distinguishes from sibling tools like goodreads_author, goodreads_book, etc., which have specific focuses on details rather than 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?
The description indicates the tool is for searching books by title/author and returns only book results. It implicitly tells when to use (when needing a book search) but does not explicitly exclude cases like searching for authors or non-book content. Given sibling context, it's reasonably clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.