Retrieve API key pool status to monitor concurrency, request counts, and error rates for debugging iFlytek PPT API performance. Call directly with no parameters.
获取API密钥池状态统计。使用说明：1. 显示当前密钥池中所有密钥的使用情况。2. 包含并发数、请求数、错误率等信息。3. 用于监控和调试API调用性能。4. 无需参数，直接调用即可。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the returned content (concurrency, request count, error rate) and that it surfaces all keys in the pool, which is useful. However, it says nothing about permissions/auth requirements, read-only nature, or rate limits, leaving gaps in the behavioral profile.
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 numbered structure is readable and front-loads purpose, but item 4 ('无需参数，直接调用即可') is pure redundancy against the empty input schema and could be dropped. Item 2 and 3 are somewhat overlapping descriptions of returned data.
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?
For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema monitoring tool, the description supplies the key value: the categories of data returned (concurrency, request count, error rate). No output schema exists, so explaining the return shape is appropriate, and it does so adequately.
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, so the schema fully documents the (empty) input surface and the baseline of 4 applies. The line '无需参数，直接调用即可' adds nothing beyond the empty schema but does not mislead.
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?
The description opens with a specific verb+resource ('获取API密钥池状态统计' – get API key pool status statistics), which is unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings, but the sibling set (PPT/theme/task tools) is clearly unrelated, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.
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?
Point 3 explicitly states the intended context: '用于监控和调试API调用性能' (used for monitoring and debugging API call performance). This is clear context for when to use it, though no alternatives or exclusion conditions are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.