Extract text passages from a specified volume in the Digitale Bibliothek by providing the volume ID and optional start position and length.
Extract text content from a volume
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| length | No | Number of characters to extract | |
| start_pos | No | Starting position in the text database | |
| volume_id | Yes | Volume ID to extract from |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0-alpha.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose side effects, permissions, error handling, or the nature of the operation (e.g., read-only). It gives no insight into behavior beyond the basic extraction action.
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 a single, concise sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words or repetitions. It is well-structured and easy to parse.
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?
The tool is simple with one required parameter and two optional ones, and the description covers the basic function. However, it lacks usage context, output expectations, and transparency about side effects or errors, leaving some gaps for an agent deciding when and how to use it.
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 input schema already includes descriptions for all three parameters, so the tool description adds no extra meaning. The parameter descriptions are minimal but sufficient, and the description does not elaborate on their interplay or edge cases.
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 function with a specific verb ('Extract') and resource ('text content from a volume'), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_volume_info or search_text.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_text or get_volume_info. It lacks any contextual cues or explicit conditions for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.