Reads runtime status, version, save directory, and configuration summary from Tomato-Novel-Downloader to help verify the downloader setup and troubleshoot issues.
读取 Tomato-Novel-Downloader 的运行状态、版本、保存目录和配置摘要。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does 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 returned content (status, version, save directory, config summary), but it does not state that the call is a side-effect-free read, nor whether it can fail or block, leaving the safety profile to inference.
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?
It is a single front-loaded sentence that enumerates the returned fields with no filler. The information density is high and everything stated is relevant.
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 zero-parameter status tool with no output schema, the description compensates by listing what the response contains, which is exactly what an agent needs to decide whether to call it. The only shortfall is the missing distinction from tnd_get_diagnostics, which likely overlaps with the configuration summary.
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 and the schema is trivially complete, so there is no parameter meaning to add. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a no-argument tool with no semantic gaps.
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 a specific verb (读取) and a concrete set of resources (运行状态、版本、保存目录、配置摘要), so the agent knows it is an application-level status read rather than a book or job read. It partially distinguishes itself from siblings such as tnd_get_book_status and tnd_get_batch_status by being scoped to the application itself, but it never names those alternatives.
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?
Usage is only implied: the reader can infer this is the tool to call when it wants the app's overall health, version, or settings. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no routing away from ambiguous siblings such as tnd_get_diagnostics, which is the main weakness for a 23-sibling toolset.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.