List chapters under a volume with IDs, titles, status, and word counts to confirm which chapters are uploaded and avoid duplicates. Supports optional book and volume filters, or lists all volumes.
列出某分卷下的章节（item_id、标题、状态、字数），用于确认哪些章已上传、避免重复。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| book_id | No | 可选；默认当前选中书 | |
| volume_id | No | 分卷 id；不传则列出所有分卷的章节 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the returned fields and the read-only listing intent, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, result limits, or whether all chapters are always returned.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the return fields and the purpose. No filler.
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 simple two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers action, scope, return fields, and intent. Only the result-set behavior (pagination/completeness) is unaddressed.
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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters, including the optional book_id default and the volume_id fallback that lists all volumes, are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema provides, 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?
A specific verb (列出) and resource (章节) plus the parent scope (某分卷下) and the returned fields (item_id、标题、状态、字数). It's clearly distinguishable from list_volumes/list_books, though it doesn't name a sibling explicitly.
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 a clear use context: confirm which chapters are already uploaded and avoid duplicates, which points at upload_chapter/batch_upload workflows. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use or naming the alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.