Retrieves every novel under the logged-in account with book_id, title, word count, and status so you can obtain the book_id required before batch-uploading chapters.
列出账号下所有小说（book_id、书名、字数、状态）。批量上传前先用它拿到 book_id。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral load. '列出' implies a safe read and the account scope is stated, but nothing is said about result size, ordering, pagination, or what happens on accounts with many books — gaps that matter for a list-all 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?
Two short sentences, zero filler. The purpose and returned fields come first, with the actionable usage note second.
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?
No output schema exists, yet the description compensates by naming the four returned fields (book_id, 书名, 字数, 状态), which is exactly what an agent needs to chain into batch_upload. The remaining unknown is result volume/pagination, a minor omission for a zero-parameter tool.
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 no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no filtering is available (it lists everything under the account).
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 (列出), resource (所有小说), and scope (账号下), which cleanly separates it from list_volumes and list_chapters that operate on narrower resources. The parenthetical enumeration of returned fields further pins down what 'list' means here.
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?
Gives a concrete precondition tied to a sibling: run this before batch_upload to obtain book_id. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it or pointing to alternatives, so it is strong context rather than a full routing rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.