book-library-mcp

get_personal_notes

Retrieve all personal notes for a specific book using its unique slug, aggregating annotations and highlights for quick review.

Instructions

Return aggregated personal-notes/ content for one book.

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": {
      "slug": "<slug>"
    },
    "name": "get_personal_notes"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`slug`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 5, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It only says content is 'aggregated' and 'returned,' with no mention of authentication, ownership of the notes, side effects, error cases, or what 'aggregated' actually means. This is minimal disclosure, though not contradictory.

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 short sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and core content type. The awkward 'personal-notes/' token is slightly unconventional, but the overall structure is efficient and scannable.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and scope. It is still somewhat incomplete because it offers no usage context, no parameter detail, and no clarity about what 'aggregated' means in practice, leaving it only minimally adequate for autonomous invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the schema only provides the parameter name 'slug.' The description adds some value by tying the tool to 'one book,' implying that slug identifies a book. However, it does not explicitly describe the slug format, how to obtain it, or whether it refers to a book slug vs. a note identifier.

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 names an action ('Return'), a resource ('aggregated personal-notes/ content'), and a scope ('for one book'). This is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like get_book_metadata and get_chapter_summary, though it does not explicitly name any alternative.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus related tools such as get_chapter_summary, get_action_items, or get_book_metadata. The phrase 'for one book' narrows scope, but it does not explain what makes this tool the right choice for personal-notes retrieval.

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

Deploy Server