Look up books by ISBN (10 or 13 digits, with or without hyphens) using Kakao Daum Book Search. Retrieve bibliographic and pricing metadata for single or multiple comma-separated ISBNs.
[ISBN 도서 조회] ISBN(10자리 또는 13자리, 하이픈 포함 가능)으로 도서를 조회합니다.
isbn: 조회할 ISBN 문자열 (예: '9788996991342', '8996991341', 쉼표로 복수 지정 가능).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| isbn | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's '조회' (lookup) aligns with that. The description adds the behavioral detail that multiple ISBNs can be specified with commas, which is beyond the schema. It does not contradict annotations, but it doesn't disclose additional traits like return format or rate limits. Given the low complexity and existing read-only annotation, a score of 3 is appropriate.
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 two sentences: the first states the purpose and format, the second explains the parameter with examples. No wasted words, and the key information is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a single-parameter read-only 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 tool's simplicity (1 param, read-only annotation, no output schema), the description covers the essential details: what it does, how to format the input, and multi-ISBN capability. It does not describe the return format, but for a lookup tool this is often intuitive. The absence of output schema means the agent might benefit from a hint about what fields are returned, but this is a minor gap for such a focused tool.
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 fully explain the parameter. It does: it defines isbn as the ISBN string, gives two concrete examples, and notes that multiple ISBNs can be separated by commas. This fully compensates for the empty schema descriptions and exceeds the baseline.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: looking up books by ISBN. It specifies the ISBN format (10 or 13 digits, hyphens allowed) and is distinct from sibling tools like kakao_book_search, which likely searches by keyword. The verb '조회' (lookup) and resource '도서' (book) are explicit.
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?
The description implies usage (when you have an ISBN, use this tool) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like search. No mention of exclusions or prerequisites beyond the ISBN format. An agent can infer the use case, but it lacks explicit routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.