get_finished_booksRetrieve finished books from Apple Books with paging controls and see a progress summary, so you can review and track your completed reading list.
Get books that have been finished. Output per row: [id] title by author with a progress summary below.
Args: limit: Max books to return (1–500, default 200). offset: Books to skip, for paging.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond the annotations: the exact per-row output shape ('[id] title by author') plus a progress summary, which an agent needs to parse results. It stops short of describing ordering or the progress summary's contents.
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 first sentence front-loads the purpose and output format, and the Args block is compact. It is well-sized for a two-parameter list tool, though the bare 'Args:' block is slightly boilerplate.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully compensates by specifying the return row format, and it covers both parameters. Missing pieces are sort order and what the 'progress summary' contains, which would matter for an agent assembling a reading-status answer.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning and it largely does: limit is documented with its range (1–500) and default (200), and offset is explained as a paging skip count. The only gap is that offset's bounds and the meaning of the default are not stated.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get books that have been finished'), which is immediately distinguishable from in-progress/unstarted siblings by the status qualifier. It does not, however, explicitly name or contrast with the nearest siblings (get_books_in_progress, get_recently_read_books), so it falls short of the top score.
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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given; the agent must infer from the tool name that this is the status-filtered list and not, say, get_recently_read_books. Usage is implied rather than stated, and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.