weread-mcp

我的书架

get_shelf

Read-only

Retrieve the current user's WeRead bookshelf with complete totals: books, albums, private reading counts, and e-book count—precomputed for immediate use.

Instructions

获取当前用户书架（/shelf/sync，无参数，身份由 API Key 决定）。

    数量口径（**强制**）：
    - 书架条目总数 = `books.length + albums.length + (mp 非空 ? 1 : 0)`；
      `albums[]` 是专辑/有声书，在书架里同样按「书」管理，必须计入总数，
      不能用「另外还有」把专辑或文章收藏排除在总数之外。
    - 「电子书数」才用 `bookCount` / `books.length`。
    - 私密阅读数 = `books[].secret==1` + `albums[].albumInfoExtra.secret==1` + (`mp` 非空 ? 1 : 0)。
    - 不要遍历 `books` 逐个调 `get_book_info` 去判断有声书，直接用 `albums`。

    本服务端已按上述公式把结果算好放在 `_computed` 字段里，直接引用即可。
    失败时回复：书架信息暂时没拉到，请稍后再试~

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

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

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavior: the server has precomputed `_computed` fields, the counting formula is mandated, and a specific failure response is provided. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is longer than average, but every section earns its place: purpose, forced counting semantics, optimization guidance, and failure behavior. The bullet structure keeps it scannable, though it is slightly dense.

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 parameterless read-only tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is complete. It covers the endpoint, authentication model, exact counting semantics, recommends against inefficient sibling calls, and specifies the failure message.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this by explicitly stating '无参数' and explains that authentication is handled via the API key, which is useful context.

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 states a specific verb and resource: '获取当前用户书架' and gives the endpoint `/shelf/sync`. It clearly distinguishes this shelf-level operation from the sibling tools that retrieve individual books, highlights, or reading progress.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly says the tool has no parameters and that identity comes from the API key. It also gives a direct usage rule: do not iterate `books` and call `get_book_info` to detect audiobooks; use `albums` instead. This is clear when-to-use and when-not-to guidance.

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