jieqi_queryQuery precise solar term times for a given year, accurate to the second in Beijing time. Use it to verify Chinese astrology charts, choose auspicious timing, and validate calendar dates.
查詢指定年份二十四節氣的精確時刻（精確到秒，北京時間）。
節氣是天文事件，每年時刻不同且無簡單規律——AI 無法可靠推算 （如 2025 年立春是 2 月 3 日 22:10:13，而非 2 月 4 日）。 本工具返回權威曆表的精確數據。
輸出：二十四節氣按時間排序，含名稱、精確時刻、對應公曆日期。 用於排盤驗證、擇時分析、曆法考證。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | Yes | 查詢年份（1900-2100） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.8Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the data source ('權威曆表'), the precision, and the return structure. The read-only nature is implied by '查詢' rather than stated, and there is no explicit note on permissions or limits, keeping it short of a 5.
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 with purpose, then rationale, then output and use cases; the concrete 立春 example earns its place by justifying why the tool is needed. Slightly verbose in the rationale line but no real waste.
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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the output shape (sorted 24 terms with name, precise time, Gregorian date), which compensates for the missing schema. Behavior and return content are adequately covered, with only minor gaps like error handling for out-of-range years.
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 the single 'year' parameter is fully documented with its 1900-2100 range in the schema. The description only restates '指定年份' and adds no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 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 ('查詢...二十四節氣的精確時刻') with explicit scope (per-year, second precision, Beijing time). It is clearly distinguishable from abstract siblings like calendar_convert. An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.
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?
It gives clear usage context by explaining that solar-term times cannot be reliably computed by the model and must come from this authoritative table, and names use cases (排盤驗證, 擇時分析, 曆法考證). However, it never explicitly routes to or away from siblings such as calendar_convert, so the when-not guidance is implicit rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.