Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
iranketab-mcp

iranketab-mcp

by sepehr071
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Compare translations and editions

ik_editions
Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare every translation and publisher edition of a book side by side on rating, votes, price, pages, year, and ISBN to choose a translation or compare prices.

Instructions

Compare every translation and publisher edition of one book side by side: rating, votes, price, pages, year, ISBN.

For "which translation is best" and "cheapest copy". Ratings are per edition (1-5); few votes mean little.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "book": "<book>"
    },
    "name": "ik_editions"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bookYesBook id (e.g. 858) or iranketab.ir/book/ URL.
sortNorating (3+ votes first), votes, price (cheapest first), pages, year (newest first), site.rating
translatorNoTranslator name contains this.
in_stock_onlyNoOnly orderable editions.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description does add one genuinely useful behavioral caveat — ratings are per edition on a 1-5 scale and low vote counts are weak evidence — but says nothing about result volume, ordering guarantees, or behavior when a book has no other editions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short blocks, front-loaded with what is compared, then the user intents it serves, then a one-line caveat about ratings. Every sentence carries information; nothing is padded or repeated from structured fields.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description usefully names the returned columns and flags the rating caveat, and all four parameters are covered by the schema. It still leaves open whether all editions are returned or a subset, and what an unknown book id yields — minor but real gaps for a comparison tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so every parameter (book, sort, translator, in_stock_only) is already documented with enums and defaults. The description's field list overlaps with the schema rather than extending it; it adds no guidance on combining filters or on how translator matching interacts with sort. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Compare every translation and publisher edition of one book side by side') and enumerates the compared dimensions (rating, votes, price, pages, year, ISBN). It implicitly separates itself from ik_book/ik_reviews by scoping to editions of one book, but never names a sibling, so differentiation is left partly to inference.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It anchors usage to concrete intents ('which translation is best' and 'cheapest copy'), which tells the agent when this tool is the right pick. There are no explicit exclusions or pointers to alternatives (e.g. use ik_book for a single edition's full details), so it stops short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools