Fetch all collections belonging to a library using its unique identifier. This returns the collection list for that library.
Get libraries collections.
GET /api/libraries/{id}/collections
Args: id: Path parameter.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
| 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 no behavioral context beyond the endpoint and the word 'Get', such as return shape, pagination, or any special response behavior.
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 short and front-loaded, with no filler or redundant prose. It would benefit from more parameter semantics, but the structure itself is clean and appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter tool.
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 low complexity, the presence of an output schema, and the read-only annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks explicit sibling differentiation and parameter semantics, so an agent would need to infer the actual meaning of the id and the purpose of the collections response.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining the id parameter. It only restates that id is a path parameter without explicitly saying it is the library ID whose collections should be retrieved, which is a minimal and incomplete semantic explanation.
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 identifies a GET operation on a collections resource scoped to a library via the endpoint /api/libraries/{id}/collections. It is clear enough about the resource and action, though 'libraries collections' is slightly awkward and it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like list_collections or get_collections_by_id.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools that also deal with libraries or collections. The description only states the endpoint and parameter, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.