Search SPINES books by title, author, or ISBN to locate matching titles and return a configurable number of results.
Search for books by title, author, or ISBN
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum results to return | |
| query | Yes | Search query (title, author name, or ISBN) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds nothing beyond them. It does not disclose result ordering, whether the search is fuzzy or exact, pagination behavior, or how many hits to expect, so it contributes essentially no behavioral context.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence of eight words with no filler or redundancy, which is proportionate for a two-parameter read tool. It is efficient, though the terseness is part of why behavioral and usage guidance are thin.
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 read-only search with full schema coverage and a rich annotation set, the description covers the essential purpose. The only meaningful gap is that, with no output schema, it could hint at what the results look like (e.g. list of book records, result cap behavior).
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%, with both 'query' and 'limit' documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the query facets (title/author/ISBN) that the schema already specifies and adds nothing about limit semantics, so it neither compensates for nor extends the schema.
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 names a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('books') and enumerates the searchable facets (title, author, ISBN), so the agent immediately knows what the tool does. It stops short of differentiating from siblings like get_book_details or get_book_pairings, so it is clear but not fully disambiguating.
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?
Usage is only implied: by listing title/author/ISBN, it signals the tool is appropriate when the agent has one of those identifiers. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when to prefer get_book_details or another sibling, and no prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.