Get structured Book records from NMLP's donation archive to organize or analyze donated titles.
Get NMLP's donation archive entries as structured Book records.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "nmlp_get_archive"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action and output format, but omits essential details like whether the operation is read-only, the scope of entries returned (all? recent?), or any pagination/limitations.
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 sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output format. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous information.
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?
With no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is the sole source of information. It fails to explain the scope of 'archive entries' (e.g., date range, completeness), the structure of a 'Book record,' or any constraints. This leaves the agent with significant ambiguity about the tool's behavior.
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 tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description adds value by indicating the output is 'structured Book records,' which provides semantic context for what the agent can expect. Following the baseline of 4 for 0-parameter tools, this is appropriate.
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 tool retrieves 'donation archive entries' and formats them as 'structured Book records.' It is specific about the resource and output, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that retrieve other types of data (e.g., business cards, donation options). However, it does not explicitly contrast with similar looking siblings like 'nmlp_get_knowledge' or 'nmlp_get_pillar_guides.'
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 its siblings. It lacks context such as prerequisites, typical use cases, or conditions under which this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.