Retrieve complete book details including holdings copy status and circulation statistics by providing a MARC record number.
获取单册书目完整信息（含全部馆藏复本状态与流通统计）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | No | ||
| marc_no | Yes | MARC 记录号（search_books 结果中的 marc_no） |
| 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 present, so the description carries full burden. It states data retrieval but does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The behavioral disclosure is minimal and relies on inference.
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 zero waste. Every part contributes to defining the tool's purpose and key outputs.
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 presence of an output schema and the tool's focused purpose (retrieve single book details with copy status and circulation), the description is largely complete. It could benefit from including when to use and behavioral notes, but is still adequate.
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 50% (one param documented, one not). The description adds no explanation for the undocumented 'token' parameter and does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. It does not compensate for the 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 specifies the verb (获取/get), the resource (单册书目完整信息/complete information of a single book), and explicitly lists included data (馆藏复本状态与流通统计). This uniquely distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_books, get_availability, and get_statistics.
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 when complete single-book info with copy status and circulation is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.