Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Bangumi MCP

Bangumi MCP

by etherwindy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_character_revisions

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve revision history for a character by character ID, with optional pagination (limit and offset).

Instructions

获取角色修订历史列表

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": {
      "character_id": "<character_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_character_revisions"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
character_idYes角色ID
limitNo返回结果数量限制
offsetNo分页偏移量

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., pagination details, auth requirements, or performance implications).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Description is a single concise sentence, no wasted words. However, it could be structured as a more informative statement with key details front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, the description minimally covers the tool's function. It does not specify the nature of the list (e.g., revision IDs, timestamps) or how it differs from similar tools, but it is adequate for a simple list retrieval.

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 coverage is 100% with all parameters described. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score is appropriate.

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 the tool retrieves a list of character revision history, using a specific verb (get) and resource. It is clear about the scope but does not differentiate from sibling tool get_character_revision_info, which might lead to confusion.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_character_revision_info. The description only states function without context or exclusion criteria.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools