Retrieve an author's attendance and full-attendance calendar for a selected Fanqie Novel book, optionally filtering by start and end dates in Unix seconds (defaults to the last 30 days).
打卡/全勤日历。start_date / end_date 为 unix 秒；不传默认最近 30 天。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| book_id | No | 可选，默认当前选中的书 | |
| end_date | No | 结束 unix 秒 | |
| start_date | No | 起始 unix 秒 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the default window (last 30 days) and the epoch-second unit, but says nothing about whether this is strictly read-only, whether book_id scoping changes results, or what the returned calendar contains.
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?
Two tight clauses: resource identity first, then the date-parameter contract and default. No filler and nothing buried.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, an agent still cannot tell what a 'calendar' response looks like or how book_id interacts with the date window. Adequate for invocation, incomplete for interpretation.
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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented, including the unix-second unit. The description adds only the default-window behavior not present in the schema, which earns the baseline 3 rather than more.
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 names the resource explicitly ('打卡/全勤日历'), clarifying what the ambiguous 'attend' in the tool name means. It does not distinguish this tool from the sibling get_checkin_tickets, which covers an adjacent domain, so it stops short of a 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 only usage-relevant statement is the default range ('不传默认最近 30 天'). There is no guidance on when to use this calendar versus get_checkin_tickets or get_novel_stats, and no stated prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.