Lists the books on a local bookshelf and reports reading progress for each, so you can quickly review what you own and where you left off.
看书架上有哪些书、各自读到哪了。
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "shelf_list"
}
}| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; the verb '看' (look/see) weakly implies a read-only listing with no side effects. It does not state pagination, ordering, whether the shelf is per-user, or what happens with an empty shelf, so behavioral disclosure is thin.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler that names both the resource and the per-item progress attribute. Nothing redundant or padded.
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 does at least hint at the return shape (books plus reading progress), which is the main thing needed for a zero-param tool. It still leaves the sibling overlap and result ordering/scope unresolved.
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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The description correctly signals that the whole shelf is returned with no filtering arguments.
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 concrete action and resource: view which books are on the shelf and how far the reader has gotten in each. The scope of the return content is clear, but nothing distinguishes it from the sibling shelf_status or shelf_read, which plausibly cover the same reading-progress ground.
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 indication of when to choose this over shelf_status, shelf_read, or library_browse. With eight siblings and obvious topical overlap (shelf_status sounds like it also reports progress), the agent is left to guess.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.