similar_booksEnter a book or edition ID to get related book recommendations from iranketab's curated shelf.
Books iranketab recommends alongside a given book (its own 'related' shelf).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | book_id or edition_id | |
| limit | No | How many to return (default 10, max 30) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds the specific detail that recommendations come from the 'related' shelf, which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradiction.
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 with no wasted words. It communicates the core action and the source of recommendations efficiently.
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?
The tool is simple (2 parameters, no output schema), and annotations cover safety. The description lacks explicit information about the response format, but given the simplicity and the clarity of the purpose, it is sufficiently 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 coverage is 100% — both 'id' and 'limit' are described with types, ranges, and defaults. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 verb 'recommends' and the resource 'books', and specifies that it is based on a given book's 'related' shelf. This distinguishes it from siblings like search_books or book_details, which have different purposes.
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 to use it: when you need books recommended alongside a specific book. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.