Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Open Library MCP Server

Open Library MCP Server

by jay1234624
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

compare_books

Compare any two Open Library books by their work IDs to view side-by-side metadata, editions, and details.

Instructions

Compare two books side by side using their Open Library work IDs

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "workId1": "<workId1>",
      "workId2": "<workId2>"
    },
    "name": "compare_books"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
workId1YesFirst work ID, e.g. 'OL27448W' or '/works/OL27448W'
workId2YesSecond work ID, e.g. 'OL52267W' or '/works/OL52267W'

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'compare two books side by side' but does not describe what the output looks like, whether it is read-only, or any side effects. Agents lack information about the return format.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. While efficient, it could benefit from a bit more structure for complex comparisons.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the simple input schema (2 string params) and no output schema, the description is adequate but could be more complete by hinting at what aspects are compared or how results are presented.

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 coverage is 100% and parameter descriptions already include examples. The tool description adds minimal additional meaning beyond contextualizing the parameters as 'work IDs'. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the action (compare), the resource (two books), and the method (using Open Library work IDs). It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_books or get_work_details by focusing on side-by-side comparison.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage when comparing two books, but it does not specify when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives such as using individual get_work_details calls. No explicit guidance on prerequisites or limitations.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools