Study Errorbook

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

read_review_plan

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a question's scheduled review plan and revision history, including source prompt binding and user notes, to track due reviews and past scheduling.

Instructions

读取某题复习计划和全部修订；current_plan_revision首次0。每页最多20条，next_before_revision继续。source_revision绑定安排时题面；当前是否到期或需重新核对见read_review_queue。历史包含用户说明，不在独立重练前展示可能含提示的内容。

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "record_id": "<record_id>"
    },
    "name": "read_review_plan"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`record_id`	Yes
`before_revision`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, yet the description adds real behavioral context: pagination caps (每页最多20条), how to continue (next_before_revision), initial revision semantics (首次0), and a display caution about hint-containing history. This is meaningful value beyond the 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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, then pagination, then the sibling redirect, then the display caution — each clause carries a distinct fact with no filler. The semicolon-separated structure keeps it dense but scannable.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value shape needn't be restated, and the description still covers pagination, cursor continuation, initial-revision behavior, and the alternative tool for queue status. For a read-only paged tool this is sufficient to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It clarifies before_revision as a pagination cursor ('next_before_revision继续') and limit as a page size ('每页最多20条'), but record_id and the relation of these fields to the returned current_plan_revision/source_revision remain only loosely explained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb+resource ('读取某题复习计划和全部修订') and explicitly separates itself from the sibling read_review_queue by assigning '是否到期或需重新核对' to that tool. An agent can distinguish its job without opening a schema. Not a 5 only because the scope of '全部修订' is left somewhat open.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It routes one decision to an alternative ('当前是否到期或需重新核对见read_review_queue') and hints that history shouldn't be shown before independent re-practice, but it never states the core conditions for calling this tool versus read_study_record or read_practice_history. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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