Retrieve a book's table of contents with chapter IDs. Provides chapterUid values required to anchor thoughts, comments, and highlights to exact chapters.
书籍章节目录：[{chapterIdx, chapterUid, title, ...}]。写想法/读书都要用这里的 chapterUid。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| book_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return shape and emphasizes that chapterUid from here must be used for other operations. It does not reveal side effects, ordering, pagination, or failure behavior, but for a simple read-only TOC call this is acceptable.
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 one compact sentence with the result shape front-loaded and the important usage note immediately after. No filler or redundant wording.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values are covered. The description adds the key contextual fact that chapterUid is the required linkage for writing thoughts and reading. It could mention the relationship to get_shelf or get_chapter_text more explicitly, but for a simple TOC tool this is largely 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain book_id, where it comes from, or how to validate it. The parameter is self-evident from its name and schema, but the description adds no meaningful semantic detail beyond that.
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?
Description clearly states this tool returns the book's table of contents with chapterIdx, chapterUid, and title fields. It also notes chapterUid is the canonical identifier for writing thoughts and reading, which helps distinguish its role from sibling tools like get_chapter_text.
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?
The description implies when to use this tool: before writing thoughts or reading, you need the chapterUid from this table of contents. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving some inference to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.