Check the in-library availability of a book copy by ISBN, barcode, or title. Returns whether each copy is currently available for borrowing.
按 ISBN / 条码 / 题名查询馆藏复本在馆（可借）状态。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| isbn | No | ISBN 号（优先） | |
| title | No | 题名（demo 后端支持；oracle 后端请用 search_books） | |
| token | No | ||
| barcode | No | 条码号（优先于 isbn 匹配） |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys the tool is a read-only query for availability, which is reasonable. However, it does not disclose details such as whether it returns full availability per branch, pagination behavior, or rate limiting. With no annotations, more transparency would be beneficial.
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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It uses common separators (slashes) to list alternatives clearly. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy.
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?
Given the tool has moderate complexity (4 params, 0 required) and an output schema exists (agents can infer return format from there), the description adequately covers the core purpose. It does not explain the token parameter or the exact response structure, but the output schema compensates. Minor gap is the lack of hint about how multiple search criteria interact (e.g., AND vs OR).
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?
Schema description coverage is high at 75%, so the schema already documents ISBN, title, and barcode semantics well. The description repeats the search fields but adds no additional parameter-level guidance beyond what the schema provides. The token parameter's role remains unclear from both schema and description, preventing a higher score.
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 this tool queries library copy availability by ISBN, barcode, or title. It uses a specific verb-resource combination ('查询馆藏复本在馆状态') that distinguishes it from siblings like search_books or get_book_detail.
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 usage context—to check availability—and the input schema provides a hint that for title queries with an Oracle backend, search_books should be used instead. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance for ISBN or barcode searches versus other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.