Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
fanqie-writer-mcp

fanqie-writer-mcp

by CommitByRyan
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

check_auth

Verify Fanqie author backend login validity by loading stored Cookie/CSRF credentials and calling the book-list endpoint, then return an overview of novels under the account.

Instructions

检查番茄作家后台登录态是否有效（读取 auth.json 或环境变量中的 Cookie/CSRF，调一次书单接口验证）。返回账号下的小说数量概览。

Tool call template

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": "check_auth"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

该描述披露了真实的行为细节：凭证来自 auth.json 或环境变量，并会执行一次网络请求以验证。这很有价值，因为此工具没有提供任何注释。但它没有说明失败模式（当登录态无效时，是抛出错误、返回 false，还是无返回？）——对无注释的工具来说，这是最后一层透明性缺口。

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

两句话，没有填充内容：首先是行为，其次是返回内容。父级说明中的实现细节（auth.json/环境变量、一次书单调用）直接位于事实之后，而有用的内容没有任何被埋没。

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

没有输出 schema，但描述用一句话说明了返回内容（账号下的小说数量概览），这大约是智能体所需的信息。对于一个简单的零参数验证器来说，这是完整的；只有失败时的行为没有说明。

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

该工具接受 0 个参数，因此不存在需要补充的语义，这就是零参数工具的基准分。描述也没有声称存在可选参数，这会与空 schema 相矛盾。

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

该描述包含明确的动词 + 资源（检查 ... 登录态是否有效），并明确说明其范围（凭证来自 auth.json 或环境变量，通过一次书单接口调用来验证），这将其与同级工具（如 list_books、list_chapters）清楚区分开；后者假定认证已存在，但这个工具自身会验证认证。

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

用途是隐含的——它是一个预检工具——但描述从未明确说“在调用其他工具之前使用此工具”，也没有说明任何排除条件或在其他同级工具中的替代方案。由于使用场景相当明显，该描述仍足够作为最低限度的可行说明，但智能体只能推断其前置作用。

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools