Add a download URL to a persistent SQLite queue so it survives process restarts and can resume later. Supports proxy, headers, priority, speed limits, and connections.
把下载加入持久化队列（SQLite），进程退出后仍保留，可断点续传。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| proxy | No | http://… | socks5://… | socks5h://… | auto | |
| output | No | ||
| headers | No | ||
| priority | No | ||
| limit_bps | No | ||
| connections | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key traits: persistence via SQLite, retention after process exit, and resumable downloads. However, it omits critical queue semantics such as whether adding starts the download, what is returned (e.g., job ID), duplicate handling, and error behavior.
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 wasted words. It is appropriately concise, though given the tool's complexity it could benefit from a second sentence to clarify usage without becoming verbose.
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 tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and very low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It conveys the core action and persistence, but omits parameter meanings, return behavior, and queue interaction with siblings like queue_run.
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?
Seven parameters exist with only 14% schema description coverage, and the description adds no meaning for any parameter. It does not explain url, proxy, output, headers, priority, limit_bps, or connections, leaving the agent with almost no parameter guidance beyond basic types.
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 specific verb+resource: '把下载加入持久化队列（SQLite）' (add download to persistent queue). It clearly distinguishes itself from simple start_download by emphasizing persistent queueing and resumability, but it does not explicitly name or compare with siblings like start_download or queue_run.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are provided. The description only states the capability; it does not tell the agent when to prefer queue_add over start_download or queue_run, nor mention prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.