Skip to main content
Glama

相似书推荐

similar_books
Read-only

Find similar books to a given book using its ID, matching the official 'Similar Recommendations' list. Supports pagination for browsing more results.

Instructions

基于某本书的相似推荐(/book/similar),与 App 书籍详情页「相似推荐」一致。

    底层转发到 `/book/detailinfo?listtypes=2`,要求 count / maxIdx 必须显式传入,
    不能依赖默认值,否则结果异常。

    结果在 `booksimilar.books[].book.bookInfo`,翻页用最后一条的 `idx` 作为 `max_idx`,
    并带上 `booksimilar.sessionId`。
    

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countNo每页数量,必须显式传,首次推荐传 12
book_idYes书籍 ID
max_idxNo翻页偏移,必须显式传,首次 0;翻页传上一页最后一条的 idx
session_idNo翻页会话 ID:首次不传,之后传回包里的 sessionId

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the safe-read annotations, it discloses the underlying forwarded endpoint `/book/detailinfo?listtypes=2`, warns that `count`/`max_idx` must be explicitly passed or results may be abnormal, and documents the result location and pagination session mechanics. This is meaningful behavioral context not carried by annotations or schema alone.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences lead with purpose, then add a critical caveat, then explain result shape and pagination. There is no filler, and each clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given annotations, an output schema, and four documented parameters, the description covers everything needed to call correctly: endpoint behavior, mandatory explicit arguments, result location, and the pagination protocol. No practical gap remains for an agent deciding to invoke this tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains the required explicit values for `count` and `max_idx`, the initial session behavior, and pagination offsets. The description mostly restates these parameter rules while adding the result-path detail, so it provides only modest additional meaning.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it returns similar-book recommendations based on a given book, matching the app detail page's '相似推荐' section, and even cites the endpoint `/book/similar`. It is specific enough to be identified from siblings, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with related recommendation tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It conveys when to use the tool: whenever similar-book recommendations for a specific book are needed, with semantics aligned to the book detail page. It offers clear context and strong procedural guidance for first call vs pagination, but does not formally state when-not-to-use or name alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.