Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-server-fanqie

mcp-server-fanqie

by fysh1010
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

get_raw_content

Retrieve complete raw HTML content of a novel chapter, including author notes and all response data, using a chapter ID.

Instructions

Get the unprocessed raw chapter content, including the complete response data (HTML format, author notes, etc.)

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": {
      "item_id": "<item_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_raw_content"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
item_idYesChapter ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.2

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It reveals content type (HTML, author notes) but omits other behaviors like idempotency, authentication, or side effects.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Single, focused sentence that front-loads the purpose without extraneous words.

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?

Lacks output schema; description gives some context on return data (HTML, author notes) but is vague about structure. With many siblings, more detail on return format would improve completeness.

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?

Parameter schema has 100% coverage with basic 'Chapter ID' description. Description adds no extra meaning beyond schema, meeting baseline for high schema coverage.

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?

Clearly states it retrieves 'unprocessed raw chapter content' with HTML format and author notes, distinguishing it from likely processed siblings like get_chapter_content. However, it does not explicitly contrast with all siblings.

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?

Implies usage for raw content but provides no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor mentions alternatives among sibling tools.

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