library_get_accountRead a user's library account details from the legacy system; unsupported on the current Sirsi platform, so use the official catalog account page instead.
Legacy library account reader. Unavailable on the current Sirsi platform; use the official catalog account page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds a critical trait they don't: the tool is non-functional on the current platform. It stops short of saying what a call actually returns (error vs. empty), but the deprecation disclosure is the key behavioral fact an agent needs.
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?
Two short sentences, zero filler, with the deprecation warning front-loaded ahead of the alternative. Nothing could be cut without losing meaning.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and for a deprecated tool the description supplies the only thing an agent must know: do not call it. Minor gap is the absence of a clear statement about the failure mode if it is invoked.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for a no-argument tool applies.
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 ('library account reader') and immediately flags legacy status, which lets an agent tell it apart from the active library tools. It doesn't enumerate what account data it returns, but for a deprecated reader that level of detail is reasonable.
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?
Explicitly declares the when-not-to-use condition ('Unavailable on the current Sirsi platform') and names an alternative path ('the official catalog account page'). The only weakness is that the alternative is an external page rather than a sibling MCP tool such as library_list_loans.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.