Retrieve comprehensive details for a specific album by providing its ID, including title, author, tags, and metadata.
获取特定本子的详细信息。
参数: album_id: 本子 ID (例如 "123456")
返回: 包含详细信息的字典：id, title, author, likes, views, tags, actors, description, chapter_count, update_time, cover_url。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| album_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description must convey behavior. It discloses the return structure (a dictionary with specific fields), which is useful, and the read-only nature is implied by 'get'. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, possible errors, or any side effects beyond fetching data.
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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a clear parameter explanation and a return-field list. Every part adds value, though the return list is somewhat redundant given that an output schema exists.
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 simple one-parameter getter, the description covers the essential input and output. However, it does not explain how to obtain an album_id, whether a login session is required, or what happens on failure. The presence of a login sibling suggests auth context may matter, and that is not addressed.
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 input schema provides no parameter description (0% coverage), so the description compensates well by explaining album_id as '本子 ID' and giving a concrete example. For a single-string parameter, this is sufficient and removes ambiguity.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves detailed information for a specific album, with a concrete verb and resource. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like browse_albums and search_album, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.
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 implies the tool is for fetching details about one album once an album_id is known, but it provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over search_album, browse_albums, or get_album_comments. No exclusions or alternative routing are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.