get_chapterGet detailed info for a One Piece manga chapter by number: title, volume, release date, anime episodes, story arc, and summary, with spoiler limits respected.
A manga chapter's title, volume, release date, Weekly Shōnen Jump issue, the anime episodes that adapt it, its story arc and a short summary. Blocked when past the spoiler limit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| number | Yes | Chapter number |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent hints, which the description does not contradict. The description adds a behavioral constraint—'Blocked when past the spoiler limit'—which is not covered by annotations and provides valuable context about potential failures. This adds meaningful transparency beyond the structured metadata.
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, well-structured sentence that efficiently lists the returned fields and the spoiler limit condition. Every part earns its place with no fluff or redundant wording, and the key information is front-loaded.
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 tool with one parameter, the description covers the returned data and a key behavioral edge case (spoiler limit). It does not discuss error handling or output format, but given the lack of an output schema and the simplicity of the operation, these omissions are minor. The description is complete enough for an agent to invoke 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?
The input schema has full coverage (100%) for the single parameter 'number', with a clear description 'Chapter number'. The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the schema does the heavy lifting and no additional context is required.
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 that the tool retrieves a manga chapter's details, listing specific attributes such as title, volume, release date, and more. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_episode or get_arc, the focus on chapter-specific data makes its purpose clear and distinct.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions a spoiler limit constraint but does not explain when to prefer get_chapter over get_episode or get_arc, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites. This is a significant gap given the presence of similar sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.