download_requestCall the download center's raw API as a fallback for custom or unsupported download tasks. Write requests automatically include --yes.
调用下载中心原始 API（兜底；写方法自动带 --yes）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No | JSON 请求体 | |
| host | No | NAS 主机地址（IP 或域名） | |
| port | No | NAS 端口，如 5667（HTTPS）/5666（HTTP）/443 | |
| scheme | No | 传输协议 | |
| profile | No | 独立 session profile 名称，默认使用 default | |
| endpoint | Yes | 下载中心原始端点 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one meaningful trait: write methods automatically pass --yes, i.e. mutations proceed without confirmation. Beyond that it says nothing about auth, error behavior, or what a raw call returning means, leaving significant gaps.
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?
A single short sentence with a parenthetical, front-loaded with what the tool does. Nothing redundant, though brevity comes at the cost of detail rather than being purely efficient.
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 need not be explained, and the fallback framing plus --yes note are present. Yet for a 6-parameter raw-passthrough with zero annotation coverage, the description omits how host/port/scheme/profile compose and what failure modes to expect.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters (endpoint, body, host, port, scheme, profile). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the passing --yes note, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 states a clear verb and resource: it calls the download center's raw API, and it is scoped to the download center (distinguishing it from generic raw_request/photos_raw_request siblings). It is still somewhat vague about what 'raw API' concretely means and which endpoints are valid, but the core purpose is clear.
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?
'兜底' (fallback) implies this should be used only when the dedicated download_* tools don't cover the need, which is useful implied guidance. However, no explicit alternative or when-not condition is named, so the routing guidance remains inferred rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.