Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Errorbook MCP

Errorbook MCP

by stardustlil
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

错题本统计

get_library_stats

Get counts of active, mastered, archived, due now, and due within seven days, plus subject distribution for your error notebook.

Instructions

返回活动、已掌握、已归档、当前到期和七天内到期数量及学科分布。

Tool call template

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_library_stats"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation by stating it returns data, and it specifies the exact metrics computed, which adds some behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly confirm non-modification, real-time vs. cached data, or any prerequisites, so it falls short of full transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, tightly constructed sentence that front-loads the verb and lists all returned categories without redundancy. Every phrase earns its place, and it is easy to scan.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the absence of parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently conveys the tool's scope and return values. It could be more explicit that statistics cover the entire mistake book, but the listed categories and subject distribution provide a solid understanding.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. With no parameters to describe, the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter details since none are needed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb '返回' (returns) and clearly enumerates the exact statistics provided: counts for active, mastered, archived, currently due, and due within seven days, plus subject distribution. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that manage individual problems or exports.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternative tools. Users must infer from the tool name and the nature of the stats that this is for aggregate overviews.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools