scholar-mcp

Search Books

search_books

Read-only

Find books by title, author, or free-text query through Open Library; returns matching results, or a job handle to poll when the service is rate-limited.

Instructions

Search for books by title, author, or free text.

Uses Open Library. Prefer title and author over query: they use dedicated indexes and return far better results.

Open Library is politeness-rate-limited, so a busy moment may answer with a job handle to poll using get_job_result instead of the results themselves.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Maximum results to return (max 50).
`query`	No	Free-text fallback. Use ``title``/``author`` when known.
`title`	No	Book title or partial title (recommended).
`author`	No	Author name (recommended).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedv1.10.0Sep 8, 2026
- addedOutput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +true
```
- removedOutput schema / properties
```
Removed value: -{
-  "result": {
-    "type": "string"
-  }
-}
```
- removedOutput schema / required
```
Removed value: -[
-  "result"
-]
```
- removedOutput schema / x-fastmcp-wrap-result
```
Removed value: -true
```
First observedv1.9.0Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds two traits they cannot express: the upstream is Open Library with politeness rate limiting, and a busy moment may return a job handle instead of results. The one gap is that it doesn't say how to tell a job-handle response apart from a result set, or what happens if the handle expires.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the index preference, then the async caveat — each carrying distinct information with no restatement of the title or schema. Nothing could be removed without losing routing or behavioral signal.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is unnecessary, and the description instead spends its words on the one non-obvious runtime behavior an agent must handle: a possible job handle requiring polling. With zero required parameters and full schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 adds rationale the schema lacks: title and author hit dedicated indexes and return far better results, which explains why the schema marks them "recommended." The ``limit`` parameter is left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable given full coverage.

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 ("Search for books") and enumerates the three search axes (title, author, free text), which cleanly separates it from search_papers and search_standards among the siblings. An agent can identify the right 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 Guidelines5/5

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

Gives an explicit preference ordering — use ``title``/``author`` over ``query`` — with the reason (dedicated indexes, better results), and names the fallback path when the service is rate-limited (poll with ``get_job_result``). That is concrete when-to-use and alternative routing rather than implied guidance.

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