Scholar MCP Server

get_book_details_tool

Fetch detailed book metadata by providing a book ID and selecting the source (OpenLibrary or Google Books).

Instructions

Get detailed metadata for a specific book. Provide the book_id (e.g., OL12345W or Google Volume ID) and the source ('openlibrary' or 'googlebooks').

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": {
      "book_id": "<book_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_book_details_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`source`	No		openlibrary
`book_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Get detailed metadata', implying a read operation but not explicitly stating it is non-destructive or if it requires authentication. No information about error behavior, rate limits, or side effects is provided.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is concise with two sentences, no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. Every word is necessary.

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 tool has an output schema, return values need not be explained. However, the description lacks behavioral completeness (e.g., no mention of safety or error handling). For a simple metadata retrieval, it is adequate but could be more comprehensive.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains both parameters: book_id format ('e.g., OL12345W or Google Volume ID') and source values ('openlibrary' or 'googlebooks'). It adds meaning beyond the schema, though it could note that source defaults to 'openlibrary'.

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 ('Get detailed metadata') and the resource ('a specific book'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_books_tool and interact_with_book_tool by focusing on retrieving metadata for a single known book.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides explicit usage by naming the required parameters (book_id and source) and giving examples. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool (e.g., when searching is more appropriate) or mention alternatives like other get tools for papers.

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