Retrieve a book's saved learning captures by ID, with optional status filter for targeted review.
List saved learning captures from a book
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | Optional status filter | |
| book_id | Yes | Book ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes | 原始 DeepTutor 工具返回值；其具体字段由对应 DeepTutor API 决定。 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scope of 'from a book' and confirms the listing behavior, but does not mention optional filtering by status, ordering, or pagination; the existing output schema mitigates this.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no redundant filler. Every word contributes to identifying the operation and its scope.
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 simple read-only list tool with a complete schema, read-only annotations, and an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. The only notable gap is the lack of contrast with similar reading-related list tools, but that is more pertinent to usage guidance.
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 both parameters are already documented. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, only reinforcing the book_id scope through 'from a book'.
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 lists saved learning captures scoped to a book. It is unambiguous on its own, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like list_reading_annotations or list_reading_bookmarks.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_reading_annotations or list_reading_bookmarks. There are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or references to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.