Retrieve popular book borrowing rankings from the library catalog, optionally filtered by Chinese Library Classification prefix and time period.
热门借阅图书排行（可按中图法大类过滤）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | No | ||
| top_n | No | 返回条数（<=50） | |
| cls_no | No | 中图法分类号前缀（如 'I'） | |
| period | No | total|year | total |
| 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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, data freshness, or pagination behavior. The token parameter is left unexplained, and the description assumes a read-only ranking but does not explicitly confirm safety or data source.
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 Chinese sentence that states the core function and filtering capability. It is front-loaded with the key purpose and has zero wasted words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 (which presumably defines the return format), a simple parameter list with defaults, and a straightforward ranking task, the description covers the essential use case. However, it omits details like output ordering, how 'hot' is determined, and token handling, but the output schema may address some of this. It is nearly complete for a tool of this complexity.
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 75% with top_n, cls_no, and period having Chinese descriptions that specify constraints (≤50, prefix, total/year). The description adds minimal extra value beyond the schema by mentioning classification filtering, but token remains undocumented. Baseline is 3 due to high coverage, and no substantial semantic enrichment is provided.
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's purpose: retrieving a ranking of hot borrowed books ('热门借阅图书排行') with optional filtering by Chinese library classification ('可按中图法大类过滤'). This directly distinguishes it from siblings like search_books (general search), get_new_arrivals (new arrivals), and browse_classification (browsing taxonomy) by focusing on popularity ranking.
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 obtaining a hot borrowing list with optional classification filtering, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like search_books or get_statistics. There is no mention of prerequisites, auth requirements (despite the token parameter), or when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.