Verify a book slug exists and confirms you are its author before proceeding with Leanpub API actions.
Check whether a book slug exists and you are an author of it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes |
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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the check action but fails to mention what the tool returns (e.g., boolean, error), whether it has side effects, or how it behaves on missing slugs. This is a minimal disclosure that leaves key behavioral aspects unspecified.
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 a single concise sentence that directly states the purpose. It is front-loaded, contains no unnecessary words, and avoids redundancy.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimal. However, it omits critical information such as return type, error handling, and usage context, especially since annotations are absent. This makes it incomplete for an agent to call 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?
The single parameter 'slug' has no schema description (0% coverage), and the tool description does not define what a slug is or its expected format. The description only mentions 'book slug' without elaboration, so it adds little meaning beyond the parameter name itself.
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 states a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('book slug exists and you are an author'), which clearly conveys the tool's purpose. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_book, but the intent is clear enough for a simple check tool.
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 this tool is used to verify existence and authorship before operations requiring authorship, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like get_book or create_book. No 'use this when' or exclusion guidance is provided, leaving usage context inferred rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.