Fetch an Internet Archive item's metadata and file listing by identifier to inspect its contents. No credentials required.
Fetch an archive.org item's metadata and file listing by identifier. No credentials required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file_limit | No | ||
| identifier | Yes | ||
| include_files | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that no credentials are required and implies a read-only fetch, but says nothing about behavior on an unknown identifier, rate limiting, or the effect of the file_limit cap.
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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the qualification that no credentials are needed earns its place by preempting an authentication question.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a tool with three parameters and a default truncation limit on file listing, the description leaves the caller without guidance on include_files or the 100-file cap.
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 0% across three parameters, and the description only explains identifier implicitly through 'by identifier'. The include_files and file_limit parameters—including the default cap of 100 files—are never addressed, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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 (Fetch) and resource (archive.org item metadata and file listing) with the key input (identifier). It implicitly contrasts with the sibling ia_search_items, but never names it, so the differentiation is left to inference.
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 implies when this tool applies (you already have an identifier) versus a search tool, but it never states usage conditions or exclusions explicitly, and does not mention what to do when you only have a query rather than an identifier.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.