Lists unpublished chapter drafts for a selected book, letting you browse drafts by page and optionally choose a book or use the current selection.
草稿箱列表（未发布的章节）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| book_id | No | 可选，默认当前选中的书 | |
| page_count | No | 每页条数，默认 20 |
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 disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about pagination behavior, which book's drafts are returned by default, or whether results are read-only. It only conveys that the contents are 'unpublished chapters', leaving most behavioral traits undocumented.
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?
A single short sentence with zero waste, though it's more terse than front-loaded—there is minimal content to structure.
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?
For a simple two-optional-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but thin: it doesn't explain what fields drafts contain or pagination format. Combined with absent annotations, more disclosure would help the agent call it confidently.
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% with both parameters documented including their defaults (current selected book, 20 per page), so the schema handles semantics. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, which matches the baseline 3 for full coverage.
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The description clarifies that it lists drafts, specifically unpublished chapters, distinguishing the resource somewhat from list_chapters. However, it largely restates the tool name and doesn't explicitly frame the draft-vs-chapter distinction.
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 on when to use this versus list_chapters or other list tools; the sibling set includes list_chapters but no relation or exclusion is stated. The agent must infer the draft-only scope from the parenthetical alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.