Retrieve player stats and human-likeness scores for a book and agent, so you can check progress and performance before choosing routes.
Stats and human-likeness numbers. / 记录
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| book | No | 书的 slug（见 galbook_books）。服务端设了默认书时可省略 | |
| agent | No | 你的玩家名（1-40 位字母数字/中日文/_-.）。服务端设了默认名时可省略 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses essentially nothing: not whether the call mutates state, what identity/auth the agent must assume, or what shape the "numbers" come back in. The phrase "human-likeness numbers" hints at content but gives no behavioral profile for an unannotated tool.
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?
It is short, but shortness here is under-specification rather than concision: two disconnected fragments joined by a slash, with no stated subject for "Stats". Nothing is front-loaded because there is no substantive lead sentence.
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 annotations, no output schema, and two optional parameters whose defaults are the only real subtlety, the description is the sole source of behavioral context and supplies none of it. An agent would have to experiment to learn what a "profile" contains and whether calling it is safe.
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 100% and both parameters (book slug, agent name) are documented in the schema with their own fallback-to-default notes. The description adds no meaning beyond that, but per the coverage rule the schema doing the work sets the baseline at 3.
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?
"Stats and human-likeness numbers" gestures at a profile-like read tool but never names the resource being profiled (a player? a book? the agent's session?) or the verb. The Chinese fragment "记录" (record/log) is ambiguous and, if anything, suggests a write operation, which conflicts with the stats-reading reading. Against 15 sibling tools with distinct names, an agent cannot confidently tell what this returns.
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?
There is no guidance at all on when to call this versus galbook_status, galbook_log, or galbook_persona, which are the obvious neighbors for state/statistics. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no mention of whether it must be called before or after other lifecycle tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.