list_draftsFilter and list local RedNote drafts by status—draft, in_review, approved, ready_to_publish, published, cancelled—without accessing external services.
按状态筛选并列出本地草稿，不访问外部服务。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| status | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and closed-world, and the description adds useful operational context: it lists only local drafts and does not access external services. It does not describe return ordering or payload shape, but for a simple lister this is a reasonable level of 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?
One concise sentence front-loads the action, resource, filter capability, and an important behavioral constraint. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.
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 read-only listing tool with two optional parameters, a clear schema, and no output schema, the description is adequate: it names the resource, the filter, and the local/non-external scope. It could mention return format or default unfiltered behavior, but the schema and verb list make these reasonably inferable.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds clear meaning for the status parameter ('filter by status') but says nothing about limit. The schema's default, min, max, and enum still make both parameters reasonably self-explanatory, so partial compensation is enough for a 3.
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 states a specific verb and resource: list local drafts, with an explicit selection criterion (filter by status). This clearly distinguishes it from singular operations like get_draft and mutation tools like update_draft/cancel_draft.
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 implies usage: use this for listing local drafts, optionally filtered by status, and it explicitly says it does not access external services. However, it does not name alternative sibling tools or provide explicit when-not-to-use conditions beyond the local/non-external distinction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.