Retrieve a list of authors from the Audiobookshelf library by searching the authors endpoint, enabling quick identification and selection of authors for library management or playback tasks.
Get search authors.
GET /api/search/authors
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the endpoint path, and does not mention scope, pagination, auth requirements, or any side-effect-relevant trait. 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 extremely short, with no filler or redundant content. The endpoint line is a useful concrete reference. Given the simple parameterless nature of the tool, this level of brevity is appropriate and well-structured.
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?
With no parameters, an output schema, and strong safety annotations, the invocation mechanics are fully covered. However, the description is ambiguous about what 'search authors' specifically returns and when it should be used relative to sibling search/list endpoints. This is a clear gap for an agent deciding between lookalike tools.
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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to explain about inputs. The baseline of 4 for parameterless tools applies; no additional parameter context is needed.
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 'Get search authors' is essentially a direct restatement of the tool name list_search_authors. It does not clarify what a 'search author' is, what the result represents, or how this differs from sibling tools like list_search_books or get_authors_by_id. The GET path adds a concrete endpoint but not semantic clarity.
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 given about when to use this tool instead of alternatives. With many sibling list_search_* and author-related endpoints, an agent receives no explicit or implicit cue for choosing this tool. The description is not misleading, but it provides zero routing help.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.