Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kavita MCP Connector

Kavita MCP Connector

by si-essence
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

kavita_chapter

Destructive

Retrieve, update, and delete single or multiple chapters on a self-hosted Kavita server, with write actions requiring explicit confirmation and supporting dry-run previews.

Instructions

kavita_chapter covers the chapter toolset (5 operations). Auth is the x-api-key header, or a JWT from KAVITA_USERNAME and KAVITA_PASSWORD. Self-hosted Kavita only. action help with target returns one action's parameters. Writes need confirm set to the boolean true and KAVITA_ALLOW_WRITES=true. Omit confirm for a dry-run preview that sends nothing. Destructive, credential, or exposure actions add an extra warning in the preview and here: delete, scan, analyze, refresh, cache clear, cleanup, user or role changes, Auth Key create or revoke, password reset, settings, license, scrobbling tokens, OAuth or OIDC, and email. Actions: delete, get, get_chapter_detail_plus, post_delete_multiple, post_update.

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": {
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "kavita_chapter"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyNoJSON body for the Kavita operation. Secrets are redacted in output.
queryNoOpenAPI query parameters.
actionYesKavita operation to call, or help.
paramsNoOpenAPI path parameters, such as seriesId.
targetNoWith action help, the action whose parameters to describe.
confirmNoSet to the boolean true to execute the write. Omit this field for a dry-run preview. false and the string true are rejected.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds the non-obvious parts: a two-key write gate, a safe dry-run default, and extra warnings on dangerous actions. The destructive-action list is partly boilerplate for this tool (most named actions, e.g. scan, cache clear, OAuth, aren't in this action enum), which dilutes rather than misleads.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The auth and write-safety constraints are front-loaded and useful, but the long enumeration of destructive actions and credential categories mostly does not apply to this five-action tool. Several sentences could be trimmed to the two that matter here: the confirm gate and the help/target lookup.

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 multi-action dispatcher with nested body/params objects and no output schema, the description covers auth, safety gating, and self-documentation via the help action, which is most of what an agent needs to call it. Return shape is only hinted at ('Secrets are redacted in output'), leaving what get or get_chapter_detail_plus returns undocumented.

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 the schema already explains action, target, confirm, body, query and params; the baseline applies. The description contributes one genuinely new usage rule — 'action help with target returns one action's parameters' — establishing the discovery workflow, but adds nothing about what params/query should contain per operation.

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 names the resource ('the chapter toolset') and enumerates the five concrete operations (delete, get, get_chapter_detail_plus, post_delete_multiple, post_update), so an agent can tell this is chapter-scoped rather than series- or volume-scoped. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the eleven sibling tools, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Usage conditions are unusually concrete: self-hosted Kavita only, x-api-key or JWT via KAVITA_USERNAME/KAVITA_PASSWORD, writes require confirm=true plus KAVITA_ALLOW_WRITES=true, and omitting confirm yields a dry-run that sends nothing. What's missing is routing guidance among siblings — nothing says when to reach for kavita_chapter versus kavita_volume or kavita_series.

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