Search a CWA book library and configured sources for books by title or author, with priority ordering and pagination.
搜索书库与配置的书源。默认优先 CWA 中文、书源中文、CWA 其他、书源其他。partial 或 warnings 表示不能断言无结果；使用 next_cursor 继续。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| author | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| formats | No | ||
| language | No | zh_preferred |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), and the description adds genuinely new context: the default source-priority order and the caveat that partial/warnings mean absence of results cannot be asserted. That last point is a meaningful, non-obvious behavioral trait.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before the priority order and result-interpretation caveat. Dense and largely waste-free, though the source-priority ordering is somewhat cryptic.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. However, with six undocumented parameters and no sibling routing guidance, the definition is only adequate for a tool of this complexity.
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% for all six parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It only loosely implies cursor behavior (next_cursor) and language preference (zh_preferred priority); author, formats, limit, and query semantics remain undocumented in both schema and description.
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?
States a specific verb (搜索/search) and two concrete resources (书库 book library and 配置的书源 configured book sources). An agent can distinguish it from acquire_book/upload_book, though the description never names a sibling explicitly to sharpen the boundary.
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 implied (search before acquiring) but never stated. The description gives useful operating guidance about interpreting results (partial/warnings) and continuing with next_cursor, yet it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use versus the sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.