Skip to main content
Glama

Author and books

tg_author
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve an author's profile and paginated books on Taaghche, with sorting, format, and max-price filters for browsing their catalog.

Instructions

An author's profile (with a slug: nationality, life dates, bio) and their books, 16 per page.

Sort, format, max_price as in tg_browse.

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": {
      "author": "<author>"
    },
    "name": "tg_author"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sortNohot = trending; cheapest = ascending price.hot
authorYesAuthor slug (tg_book author_slugs) or id.
cursorNoPrevious next_cursor.
formatNoany
max_priceNoMax price, Toman.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With annotations already covering read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, the description adds useful pagination context (16 per page) and names profile fields. It still does not describe return shape, cursor behavior, or failure cases, so it remains adequate but not rich.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The definition is very short and front-loads the main resource. The parenthetical profile field listing is slightly awkward, but there is little wasted text.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description gives a high-level view of output (author profile fields plus books paginated) for a tool without an output schema. It leaves some important details unstated, such as the book fields returned or how pagination cursors should be interpreted beyond the schema.

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 80%, so the schema already carries most parameter meaning. The description adds a cross-reference that sort, format, and max_price behave as in tg_browse, but it does not elaborate beyond what the schema enums and descriptions provide.

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 clearly identifies the resource: an author's profile with specific fields and their books. It also states pagination at 16 per page, making the scope concrete. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from similar siblings such as tg_book or tg_browse.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The phrase 'as in tg_browse' points to shared parameter semantics, not to when this tool should be selected over alternatives.

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