Retrieve a Maimemo cloud wordbook by its ID to access saved vocabulary lists and study materials. Use it to fetch a specific notepad's contents for review or management.
获取云词本
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | 云词本 id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds no further behavioral context such as what is returned, error behavior for a missing id, or remote-fetch semantics implied by openWorldHint.
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?
It is a single terse fragment with no waste, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. There is no structure to front-load because there is no substantive content.
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 read tool with no output schema, the description should at least indicate what a notepad record contains or what happens for an invalid id. Annotations cover the safety profile, but the description leaves the agent with only the parameter name to reason from.
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% with a single 'id' parameter documented as the cloud notepad id. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 '获取云词本' is essentially the tool name (maimemo_get_notepad) restated in Chinese, so it is a tautology rather than an independent statement of purpose. It gives no indication of how it differs from siblings like maimemo_list_notepads or maimemo_get_vocabulary.
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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to the alternative maimemo_list_notepads for enumerating notepads. Nothing misleading, but nothing helpful either.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.