weread-mcp

我的想法与点评

get_my_reviews

Read-only

Retrieve your personal reviews and chapter comments for a specific book. Pass the book ID to fetch paginated thoughts, ratings, and highlighted notes.

Instructions

获取我在某本书里的个人想法与点评（/review/list/mine），包含划线想法、章节点评和整本书评。

    - `reviews[].review.abstract` / `range` 是条件字段：只有能定位到原文的想法才有值；
      有值时按「原文 + 想法」展示，整本书评/章节点评可能没有。
    - `star` 为评分（0-5，-1=无评分），`chapterName` 仅章节点评有值。
    - 翻页：`hasMore=1` 时把回包的 `synckey` 传回本工具。

    与 `get_book_highlights` 配合才是完整的「单本书笔记内容」。

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`count`	No	每页数量，默认 20
`book_id`	Yes	书籍 ID（网关参数名为 bookid）
`synckey`	No	翻页游标，首次传 0

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare this a read-only, non-destructive operation, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond that: conditional fields (abstract/range only when locatable), star value semantics, chapterName being populated only for chapter comments, and pagination behavior via hasMore/synckey. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

The description is well-structured with a purpose sentence followed by precise bullet points. Every sentence adds needed information: endpoint, content scope, field conditions, star/chapterName semantics, pagination, and sibling relationship. It is compact given the complexity of the response semantics.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only paginated tool that has an output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: what the tool returns, how conditional fields behave, pagination mechanics, and how it fits with get_book_highlights. The output schema and annotations handle the remaining structural detail.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how synckey should be used for pagination (pass back the returned synckey when hasMore=1), which is not meaningfully captured by the schema alone. It does not overly repeat parameter descriptions.

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?

The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: getting personal thoughts and reviews within a book via /review/list/mine, and enumerates the included content types (划线想法, 章节点评, 整本书评). It also names get_book_highlights as the complement, helping differentiate it from the broader set of sibling tools.

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?

The description gives clear usage context by noting that pairing with get_book_highlights yields the complete single-book note content. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or which sibling alternatives (e.g., list_book_reviews, get_review_detail) should be chosen instead.

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