get_isbn_countCounts ISBNs found in a wikitext string and returns the total, helping verify citation metadata in Wikipedia articles.
Count ISBNs in a wikitext string. Returns {"count": n}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 behavioral burden. It notes the return shape, but with an output schema already present that adds little, and it says nothing about what qualifies as an ISBN (ISBN-10 vs ISBN-13, validity checks, duplicates, template/markup handling) or about failure behavior on empty input.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the return shape. No filler and nothing that could be trimmed.
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 one-parameter counter with an output schema, the definition covers the essentials, but the missing matching semantics (which ISBN formats are recognized, whether duplicates are collapsed) leave an agent unable to predict edge-case results.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% for the single 'text' parameter, so the description must compensate. Saying the string is wikitext does narrow the expected input format, but it gives no detail on how ISBNs are expected to appear, so the compensation is only partial.
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?
States a specific verb (Count) plus resource (ISBNs) and input type (wikitext string), which cleanly separates it from the sibling counting tools like get_doi_count, get_ref_count, and get_url_count. It stops short of explicit sibling differentiation within the text, so it is clear but not maximal.
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?
No when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives despite many near-identical sibling counters (get_any_count, get_doi_count, etc.). The intended usage can be inferred from the resource name but is never stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.