Lists previously cast voice characters with their names, original voice descriptions, and casting times. Use to check existing characters before casting new ones or to maintain consistent voices.
列出已铸声的角色(名字 + 当初的声音描述 + 铸声时间)。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| count | No | ||
| error | No | ||
| actors | No | ||
| warnings | No | ||
| error_code | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. '列出' implies a read-only, non-mutating operation, and the parenthetical clarifies the returned content, but there is no mention of ordering, pagination, permissions, or what an empty result means. Adequate but thin for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It's efficient, though the parenthetical return-field list is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists.
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 parameterless read tool with an output schema, the description supplies enough for correct invocation: it identifies the resource and the data returned. Only the lack of any routing hint against sibling list tools keeps it from a 5.
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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds nothing about inputs, which is appropriate here.
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 uses a specific verb (列出/list) with a scoped resource (已铸声的角色 – characters that have had voices cast) and even enumerates the returned fields. It's clearly distinguishable from create_actor/delete_actor, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the nearby list_subjects sibling.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as list_subjects or actor_tts. Usage is only inferable from the verb 'list', which is weak for a tool with this many siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.