Retrieve library book arrivals within a specified number of days, with optional filtering by classification code to track collection updates.
近 N 天新书通报。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| clc | No | 中图法分类号前缀过滤 | |
| days | No | 时间范围（天） | |
| token | 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 must fully disclose behavioral traits. The one-sentence description only states the tool's purpose; it does not mention whether it is a read-only operation, pagination, authentication requirements, or any side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to understand behavior.
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 extremely concise (one sentence), which is efficient but lacks essential details. It is not structured with front-loading or bullet points. While brevity is valued, it sacrifices clarity and completeness.
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?
Despite the presence of an output schema, the description is too minimal to provide complete context. It does not explain what the output represents, how the parameters modify behavior, or any edge cases. For a tool with three parameters and no annotations, the description is insufficient.
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 description adds no information about the three parameters. Although schema coverage is 67% (two parameters have descriptions in the schema), the tool description does not explain how 'clc' or 'days' affect results, and the 'token' parameter remains undocumented. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema description.
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 '近 N 天新书通报' (new book announcements for the last N days) clearly indicates the tool retrieves recently added books. The verb 'get' is implied by the name, and the resource is 'new arrivals'. While it is distinct from siblings like search_books or get_hot_books, it does not explicitly differentiate its scope or usage.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions (e.g., when to use search_books instead). An agent has no information about the appropriate use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.