Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Open Library MCP Server

Open Library MCP Server

by jay1234624
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

search_authors

Search for authors by name to retrieve their works and metadata from the Open Library database.

Instructions

Search for authors by name on Open Library

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_authors"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoNumber of results to return (default 10, max 25)
queryYesAuthor name to search, e.g. 'Tolkien'

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full weight of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Search for authors by name,' lacking details on authentication, rate limits, search behavior (exact vs fuzzy), or result format. This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate side effects or constraints.

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 communicates the core purpose efficiently. However, it may be under-specified, indicating a trade-off between conciseness and completeness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With no output schema, the description should provide some hint of the return format or structure. It does not. For a search tool, this is a significant gap, especially compared to more feature-rich siblings.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (query and limit) with descriptions. The tool description adds no further semantic information beyond what the schema provides, earning the baseline of 3.

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 the action ('Search'), resource ('authors'), and platform ('Open Library'). It distinguishes from siblings like search_books by specifying authors. However, it does not describe the nature of results (e.g., list of IDs/names), leaving some ambiguity.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_author_profile or search_books. The agent is left to infer context from the name alone.

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