Fetches sector or group details from a Lanhu project using its UUID to reveal the design draft's organizational structure.
获取项目的分区（分组）信息，了解设计稿的组织结构。
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": "lanhu_get_sectors"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectId | No | 项目 UUID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has side effects. The description simply states it retrieves information, which is implicit but insufficient.
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?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and to the point, appropriate for the tool's simplicity.
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 getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool does. It mentions both the return type (partition/group info) and its purpose (understand organization structure). Minor missing context about project existence requirements, but overall sufficient.
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% and the description adds no extra meaning beyond the parameter's schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameter.
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?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves sector/group information of a project, which is distinct from sibling tools that deal with designs, annotations, or downloads. The verb '获取' (get) and resource '分区（分组）信息' are specific.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states its function without any context about prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.