Browse library classification statistics by entering a classification prefix (e.g., 'T') to retrieve holdings counts for that category.
中图法分类浏览：传入分类号前缀（如 'T'）返回该类目馆藏统计。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | No | ||
| prefix | No | 分类号前缀；为空返回各大类 |
| 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool returns collection statistics, without confirming it is read-only, safe, or clarifying any side effects, auth requirements, or error handling. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.
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 short sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it could be more structured by explicitly listing the parameters or adding a brief usage note. It is efficient but not maximally informative.
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?
The tool is simple, and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, the description omits the token parameter entirely and lacks usage guidelines, making it incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's capabilities. It provides the core purpose but not enough context for correct invocation in all scenarios.
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 schema description coverage is 50% (only prefix has a description). The tool description adds a concrete example for prefix ('如 'T'') and rephrases the schema description, but it does not explain the token parameter at all. While the example adds value, the missing token documentation leaves a gap.
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 verb 'browse' (浏览) and resource 'Chinese Library Classification' (中图法分类), with the specific action of passing a classification prefix and returning collection statistics. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_books and get_book_detail by focusing on classification-based browsing.
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 when to use the tool: when you have a classification prefix to browse. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, such as using search_books for keyword searches. The context of sibling tools provides some implicit guidance, but the description lacks direct usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.