Retrieve a specific library's details from Audiobookshelf by providing its ID. Optionally include additional data via the include parameter.
Get a single library by ID on server.
GET /api/libraries/{id}
Args: id: Path parameter. include: Query parameter.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| include | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds little behavioral context beyond the HTTP method and parameter placement; it does not contradict the annotations.
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?
The description is compact and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by the endpoint and parameter annotations. Every line adds either resource identification or parameter-location guidance, with no filler.
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?
Given the simple two-parameter shape, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the definition is mostly sufficient for a minimal call using only id. The lack of meaning or allowed values for include is the main completeness gap, since the input schema itself provides no description.
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%, so the description must compensate, but it only restates 'id: Path parameter' and 'include: Query parameter'. It does not explain what values include can take or what related data it might return, leaving the most semantically opaque parameter undocumented.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Get a single library by ID on server', and the endpoint template reinforces the target resource. It distinguishes this from list_libraries and the get_libraries_by_id_* subresource siblings by narrowing to the single library object.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: the description indicates that the tool returns a single library, which suggests using it when the library object itself is needed, not its items, stats, or series. It does not explicitly name any alternative or exclusion condition, leaving routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.