fanqie-writer-mcp

update_chapter

Overwrite an existing draft chapter by item_id to revise its title or body content; chapters already submitted for review cannot be changed.

Instructions

覆盖更新已存在的章节（按 item_id，来自 list_chapters）。仅草稿可改；已提交审核的章节改不了（平台返回 -3027）。

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "item_id": "<item_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_chapter"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`file`	No	新正文从文件读取（与 content 二选一）
`title`	No	新标题（可选）
`book_id`	No	可选；默认当前选中书
`content`	No	新正文（纯文本或 <p> HTML）
`item_id`	Yes	章节 item_id
`volume_id`	No	可选；分卷 id
`volume_name`	No	可选；分卷名

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Oct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does 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 overwrite (destructive) semantics, the draft-only state restriction, and the concrete platform failure signal (-3027). It omits what happens to omitted optional fields (e.g., title/volume preserved or cleared) and any permission/auth notes.

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?

Two compact sentences with zero filler: the operation and key first, then the state constraint and error. Nothing is restated or padded.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, it covers the critical risks (destructive overwrite, draft-only restriction, error code). It stops short of describing the response shape or the effect on optional fields left unspecified, which an agent would want before calling it.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes beyond it by explaining where item_id comes from (list_chapters) and reinforcing that this is an overwrite keyed on that id. The remaining six optional parameters are left entirely to the schema, where file-vs-content exclusivity is already documented.

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?

States a specific verb and mode ('覆盖更新', full overwrite) on a specific resource ('已存在的章节'), and identifies the chapter by item_id sourced from the sibling list_chapters. This distinguishes it from upload_chapter, which creates new chapters.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives an explicit precondition and exclusion ('仅草稿可改；已提交审核的章节改不了') and points to list_chapters as the way to obtain item_id. It never names upload_chapter as the alternative for non-existing chapters, so the routing guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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

Deploy Server