Retrieve details of the currently selected novel for author management tasks.
查看当前选中的小说。
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_current_novel"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. '查看' implies a read-only operation, which is useful, but the description does not state what happens if no novel is selected, whether side effects occur, or what the returned data represents. It is minimally transparent but not richly detailed.
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 filler words. Every phrase earns its place by identifying both the action and the target resource.
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 zero-parameter getter, the description is mostly adequate, but with no output schema and no annotations, it does not clarify the return shape or behavior in edge cases such as no current selection. The low complexity and clear siblings partially compensate, leavig some gaps.
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?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is .,% so there is nothing the description needs to explain about parameter syntax. The description adds the meaningful context that the operation targets the currently selected novel, which is sufficient for a parameterless tool.
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 uses a specific verb ('查看') plus a specific resource ('当前选中的小说'), which clearly identifies the tool's function. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like list_novels and switch_novel by focusing on the current selection rather than listing or switching.
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 phrase '当前选中的' implies this tool should be used when the agent needs the currently active novel, likely after a switch_novel operation. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives, exclusion conditions, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.