Retrieve a reader's outstanding fines and penalties from the library system using their certificate ID, with optional admin token for authenticated access.
读者欠款 / 罚款明细（需 admin 认证令牌）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | No | ||
| cert_id | Yes | 读者证件号 CERT_ID | |
| include_pii | No | 是否返回实名（默认脱敏/隐藏） |
| 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 must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the need for an admin token, which hints at security/permission behavior. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, destructive, or has side effects. The parameter include_pii with default false suggests privacy behavior (data masking), but this is not explained in the description. With no annotations, a score of 3 reflects partial disclosure.
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 short sentence in Chinese with a parenthetical note). It front-loads the core purpose and an important constraint. It could be slightly more structured or include an English explanation, but for a bilingual context it is efficient.
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 an output schema (so return values don't need explaining), 3 parameters, and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose and one critical constraint (admin token). It does not explain why include_pii exists or how to handle errors, but with the output schema and moderate complexity, this is reasonably complete.
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 67% (2 out of 3 parameters documented: cert_id and include_pii). The description adds value beyond the schema by stating '需 admin 认证令牌' which implies the token parameter must be supplied with an admin-level token. It does not describe cert_id semantics further, but the schema already does that. The missing parameter (token) is implicitly addressed by the authentication hint in the 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 uses Chinese to state '读者欠款 / 罚款明细' meaning 'reader fines/fee details', which clearly indicates retrieving fine details for a reader. This distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_reader_borrowing (borrowing records) and get_reader_history (reading history). However, the verb is implicit, so it is not a perfect 5.
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 adds '需 admin 认证令牌' meaning 'requires admin authentication token', which implies when to use the tool (must have admin rights). However, it provides no guidance on when not to use this tool or how it compares to siblings like get_statistics or union_search. The only usage hint is the authentication requirement, which is insufficient for an agent deciding among 12 sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.