get_unstarted_booksIdentify books in your Apple Books library with 0% progress to manage your reading list. Returns each book's ID, title, and author.
Get books that haven't been started yet (0% progress). 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 the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the return shape per row ('[id] title by author' with a progress summary) and that offset exists for paging — real behavioral context, especially useful with no output schema.
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?
Front-loaded summary sentence followed by a compact Args block; no filler. The Args section partially restates schema defaults, but the added range and output format justify the length.
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 and no annotation coverage of results, the description supplies the output format itself, plus the result cap and paging mechanism. Nothing essential for calling this read-only list tool is missing.
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 the parameters, and it does: both limit and offset are explained. It adds the 1–500 bound for limit, which the schema omits (only a default of 200 is present), and clarifies offset's paging role.
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+resource ('get books') and pins the scope with a precise filter: 'haven't been started yet (0% progress)'. That filter implicitly separates it from get_books_in_progress and get_finished_books, though those siblings are never named explicitly.
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?
The 0%-progress filter implies when to reach for this tool versus the in-progress/finished variants, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. Usage must be inferred from the scope definition alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.