Retrieve all matching items from a specific library using its ID, enabling consolidated data access, filtering, or verification.
Get libraries matchall.
GET /api/libraries/{id}/matchall
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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the endpoint path—it does not explain what 'matchall' returns, what matching behavior occurs, or any other runtime effects.
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 text is very short, which is good, but this is under-specification rather than useful conciseness. It consists of a vague one-line summary plus an HTTP path and an argument label, leaving the reader without the information needed to understand or confidently invoke the 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?
Even though an output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the core meaning of 'matchall' is never explained. Given the large set of sibling library endpoints, an agent cannot determine what this tool does, what it returns, or why it is distinct without external knowledge.
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?
The schema documents a single string 'id' parameter with no description. The tool description adds only 'Path parameter,' which is a small structural detail, but it does not explain what value id should contain, what library it refers to, or any constraints. With 0% schema coverage, the description needed to compensate more fully.
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 essentially restates the tool name: 'Get libraries matchall' adds no semantic content about what 'matchall' actually does. The HTTP path clarifies the route but not the behavior, and there is no differentiation from sibling tools like get_libraries_by_id or get_libraries_by_id_items.
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 alternatives. The description gives only an endpoint and an argument placeholder, with no mention of intended scenarios, exclusions, or related sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.