Retrieve library collection statistics by total count, location, or classification to analyze holdings data and trends.
馆藏统计。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | No | ||
| metric | No | total（总数）| by_location（按馆藏地）| by_clc（按分类） | total |
| range_desc | No | 统计时间范围描述（如 '2026'） |
| 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or any side effects. The single phrase offers no transparency beyond a vague topic.
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 short (four characters) but under-specified. It does not earn its place because it provides almost no useful information. True conciseness requires meaningful content, not mere brevity.
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 three parameters, an output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain the return structure, parameter usage, or how to interpret the output. The agent cannot infer proper usage from this description alone.
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 meaning beyond the input schema. The schema already describes two of three parameters (metric and range_desc) with explicit options; the description does not summarize or clarify them. The token parameter lacks a schema description and the tool description does not help either. With 67% schema coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so.
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 '馆藏统计' (collection statistics) gives a vague sense of the tool's domain but lacks a specific verb or action. It does not clarify what the tool returns or how it differs from sibling tools like search_books or get_availability. The purpose is only marginally clearer than the tool name itself.
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. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or when not to use it. The description does not hint at any selective use cases, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.