Retrieve detailed metadata for a specific volume in the Directmedia collection using its volume ID to access title, author, and other bibliographic information.
Get detailed information about a specific volume
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| volume_id | Yes | Volume ID (e.g., 'DB002', 'DB003') |
| 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 provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, it does not explicitly state it is non-destructive, nor does it describe the return structure, potential errors, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation safety cues.
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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose. There is no wasted language, and it is immediately understandable.
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 (one parameter) and the existence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description is largely sufficient. An agent can infer that it returns detailed information for a given volume. It lacks explicit mention of how to obtain the volume_id (e.g., via list_volumes), but this is a minor omission for a straightforward get operation.
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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'volume_id', with an example provided in the schema. The tool description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline score 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 clear action ('Get') and a specific resource ('detailed information about a specific volume'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'list_volumes' (which lists volumes) by focusing on a single volume's details. However, it does not specify what 'detailed information' entails, which could be ambiguous for an agent.
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 like 'list_volumes' or 'search_text'. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., knowing the volume ID) or any exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.