Retrieve complete metadata for a single post by specifying the site and post ID, with support for E-Hentai/ExHentai gid/token pairs.
作品完整元数据。post_id 为数字；ehentai 为 gid/token。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site | Yes | ||
| post_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only mentions the outcome (complete metadata) and a post_id format note, with no statement on read-only behavior, side effects, permissions, rate limits, or error conditions. This is insufficient for an agent to safely predict the tool's effects.
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 very compact: two sentences. The first sentence delivers the core purpose, the second adds essential post_id semantics. There is no filler, and the structure is front-loaded.
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?
While the output schema exists and the parameter count is low, the description leaves critical context unanswered: possible 'site' values, how site and post_id interact, and when to use this tool over the siblings. An agent cannot fully infer the correct invocation just from this description.
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?
With schema coverage at 0%, the description partially compensates by clarifying that post_id should be numeric and that for ehentai it should be a gid/token pair. This adds real meaning to one parameter, but the 'site' parameter is left completely unexplained (allowed values, enums, or relationship to ehentai are not addressed).
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 that the tool retrieves complete metadata (完整元数据) for a work, giving a clear verb-resource pairing. It implies a 'get' operation with metadata as the deliverable, but it does not explicitly name how it differs from siblings like download_post or search.
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?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus existing alternatives such as search, download_post, or download_url. It lacks explicit conditions, contextual scenarios, or exclusion criteria that would help an agent choose this tool correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.