Skip to main content
Glama

Book reviews

tg_reviews
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve reader reviews for a book, sorted by most liked, including ratings, text, likes, and reply counts; supports pagination and reply threads.

Instructions

Reader reviews, most liked first: rating, text, likes, reply count. Page with offset.

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_id": "<book_id>"
    },
    "name": "tg_reviews"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoReviews per page.
offsetNoReviews to skip.
book_idYesBook id, e.g. 6426.
reply_toNoReview id: its replies instead.
max_charsNoPer-review length cap.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations by disclosing the default sort order ('most liked first'), the returned fields, and the offset-based pagination approach.

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?

The description is two compact clauses with no filler. It is front-loaded with the resource and ordering, then briefly covers returned fields and pagination.

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?

For a simple read-only listing tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is mostly complete: it states what is returned, the ordering, and pagination. It leaves out the reply_to subset mode in prose, which is a minor gap because the schema documents it.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds only marginal parameter meaning by implying offset/limit pagination and hinting at return fields; it does not clarify reply_to or max_chars beyond the schema.

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 as reader reviews and adds returned fields and ordering (rating, text, likes, reply count; most liked first). It is specific enough for an agent to know it lists review content, but it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools or state an explicit verb such as 'list'.

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?

It gives no when-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. An agent is not told when to choose this tool over tg_book, tg_search, or other sibling tools, nor when the reply_to mode should be used instead of standard review listing.

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