story_analyze_pacingAnalyzes action, dialogue, and description ratios, tension curves, and scene beat structure to identify pacing issues in a story arc or chapter.
Đo lường tỷ lệ Action / Dialogue / Description, đường cong căng thẳng (Tension curve) và cấu trúc nhịp cảnh (Scene beats).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| arc | Yes | Arc ID (ví dụ: arc_01) | |
| chapter | No | Chương cụ thể (bỏ qua để phân tích toàn bộ Arc) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Input schema / properties / arc / maxLengthAdded value: +64Input schema / properties / arc / minLengthAdded value: +1v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it implies a read-only measurement operation but never states that it is non-mutating, nor whether it requires the arc to be previously set (story_set_project) or how costly the scan is. It does usefully disclose the computed artifacts, which is the main behavioral fact an agent needs, but omits output shape and any prerequisites.
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 front-loaded sentence that enumerates the three analyses with no filler. It is efficiently sized for the tool's scope, though it spends no words on guidance or output context.
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 two-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description lists all three returned artifacts, which partially substitutes for an output schema. However, it never describes the result structure (per-chapter? per-scene? numeric ranges?), and with no annotations an agent gets no safety or precondition context, leaving a meaningful gap.
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% and both parameters (arc, chapter) are documented in-schema, including the 'omit chapter to analyze the whole arc' rule, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no syntax, format, or defaulting information beyond the schema.
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 names a specific analysis operation and enumerates the three concrete outputs (Action/Dialogue/Description ratio, Tension curve, Scene beats), so an agent knows exactly what is computed. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from near-neighbors such as story_analyze_sentiment or story_analyze_voice, which also read chapters and produce derived metrics.
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?
There is no statement of when to invoke this versus alternatives; the only scoping hint ('bỏ qua để phân tích toàn bộ Arc') lives in the schema, not the description. An agent must infer the trigger condition and cannot learn from the text why it would pick this over the other analysis siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.