libby-mcp

get_history

Read-only

Retrieve a Libby user's borrowing history, including dates, status, tags, and optional reading or listening progress, to review and analyze past loans.

Instructions

Everything the user has borrowed in Libby, most recently borrowed first. Raw data; format it as asked.

    Per title: borrow count and dates (a minimum), status (on_loan / on_hold / returned), subjects and
    BISAC categories, the user's other Libby tags (e.g. 'Finished'), ISBNs and, with `progress`:

    - marker_percent: where the reading position is, not how much was read; it moves when skipping.
    - listened_percent (audiobooks): how much was actually heard (minutes_spent / length_minutes).
    - marker_gap_percent (audiobooks): marker minus heard. Up to ~5: at most an intro or preface
      skipped; above ~10: skipped ahead; negative: parts re-listened. Prefer it over pace early on.
    - pace (audiobooks): length covered by the marker / time spent. ~1: listened straight through
      (assuming 1x playback); above ~2: skipped ahead.
    - minutes_spent and sessions: effort; one session with many minutes was a single long sitting.
    - Ebooks have no length, so only marker_percent and minutes_spent apply.
    A marker at 90%+ with a small gap usually means finished; under ~10% with few minutes means
    sampled or abandoned. 'Finished' in tags is the user's own explicit mark.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Most recent titles to return.
`library`	No	Only titles borrowed from this library key.
`progress`	No	Include reading statistics (one lookup per title).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`items`	Yes	Most recently borrowed first.
`total`	Yes	All titles in the borrowing history, before `library` and `limit`.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only and open-world, and the description adds substantive context beyond them: which fields exist, that history is raw and unordered for formatting, and that `progress` costs 'one lookup per title'. It still omits cost/volume limits at limit=500 and any pagination or failure behavior.

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?

Purpose and ordering are front-loaded, followed by a bulleted field glossary. The length is justified by genuinely non-obvious interpretation heuristics (marker vs. heard, gap thresholds), though a few sentences such as the ebook note could be trimmed without loss.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a read-only raw-data tool with a full output schema, the description supplies everything an agent lacks elsewhere: the presence and meaning of derived metrics and how to read ambiguous cases. Nothing needed to call it or interpret its output is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description meaningfully elaborates the `progress` flag by enumerating exactly the derived fields it unlocks (marker_percent, listened_percent, marker_gap_percent, pace, minutes_spent, sessions). `limit` and `library` are left entirely to the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Everything the user has borrowed in Libby') plus an ordering guarantee ('most recently borrowed first'), which cleanly separates it from search_titles, get_title, and get_account. An agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied by the scope statement (browsing/analyzing a user's borrow history); there is no explicit 'use this when...' or 'instead use X for...' routing despite eleven sibling tools. The bulk of the text is field interpretation rather than tool selection guidance.

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

Deploy Server