Retrieve a complete list of zodiac signs with essential details for astrology analysis and compatibility testing.
获取所有星座的基本信息列表
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_all_zodiacs"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it retrieves a list of basic information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it's paginated, sorted, or what 'basic information' includes (e.g., names, dates, traits). It lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions.
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 a single, efficient sentence in Chinese that directly states the purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list-retrieval tool, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., by specifying the return format).
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's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on output format (e.g., list structure, fields included) and behavioral context. For a tool with siblings, more differentiation would improve completeness.
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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it correctly implies no inputs are required by not mentioning any. Baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools.
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 clearly states the verb ('获取' meaning 'get') and resource ('所有星座的基本信息列表' meaning 'all zodiacs basic information list'), providing a specific purpose. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_zodiac_info' or 'get_zodiac_by_date', which likely retrieve specific zodiac information rather than all zodiacs.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for usage, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get_zodiac_info' (for details on a single zodiac) or 'get_zodiac_by_date' (for zodiac by date).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.