story_read_chapterRead a full story chapter by arc and chapter name, returning the complete text with word count and a list of scene headings for review or editing.
Đọc toàn bộ nội dung của một chương truyện, kèm thống kê số từ và danh sách tiêu đề phân cảnh.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| arc | Yes | Tên Arc (ví dụ: "arc_01") | |
| chapter | Yes | Tên Chapter (ví dụ: "ch_001") |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the response includes derived data (word count, scene title list) beyond raw content, but says nothing about the response format, what happens when the arc/chapter doesn't exist, or whether an active project is required.
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 well-formed sentence that front-loads the primary action and then lists the secondary return data. No filler, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than tightness.
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 read tool with a fully documented schema, no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action and hints at the return payload. The remaining gaps (error cases, project context) are minor for this level of complexity.
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 coverage is 100%, and both parameters (arc, chapter) have examples in the schema, so the description correctly does not need to restate them. It adds no additional semantics such as whether names are paths, case-sensitive, or matched against the current project.
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?
States a specific verb ('Đọc toàn bộ nội dung') and resource (a story chapter), plus what comes bundled with it: word count statistics and a list of scene titles. That makes it easily distinguishable from the write-side sibling story_write_chapter, though it never names an alternative.
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 guidance on when to call this versus story_query_context, story_stats or story_get_project_info, and no stated prerequisites (e.g. whether a project must first be selected via story_set_project). The only cue is the implicit read semantics of the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.