Fetch a public Goodreads user shelf page by user ID, optionally filtered by shelf name, to retrieve the books on that user's shelf.
Fetch a public Goodreads user shelf page. Required: user_id. Optional: shelf.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| shelf | No | Shelf | |
| user_id | Yes | User id |
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, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the shelf is public, which is useful context about access scope, but it does not mention authentication, rate limits, pagination, or default shelf 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?
Two tight sentences with zero waste, front-loading the main action and then the parameter requirements. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
For a simple two-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not say what shelf is fetched by default when 'shelf' is omitted, nor does it describe pagination or return shape, and there is no output schema to compensate.
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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description reiterates required/optional status and adds no format, valid values, or default behavior for 'shelf' or 'user_id,' so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Fetch') and resource ('public Goodreads user shelf page'), which is clearer than a generic shelf tool. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like shelf_auth_check or goodreads-search_books, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
It lists required and optional parameters but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as shelf_auth_check or goodreads-search_books. The closest thing to usage context is the word 'public,' which implies access to public shelves only, but this is not developed into explicit when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.