Check a drama's budget status, including total budget, spent amount, and remaining funds. Use it to track production costs and avoid overspending before starting new work.
查一部剧的预算状态(预算/已花费/剩余)。免费。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| drama_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.57Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the operation is a query ('查'), the fields returned, and that it is free. However, it provides no explicit read-only confirmation, error behavior, or data-freshness context.
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 compact sentence carries the purpose, the return fields, and the cost note with zero filler. Every element earns its place, and the key information is front-loaded before the free note.
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 simple one-parameter status read with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return fields, and cost, which is largely sufficient. The main gap is the absence of alternatives guidance, but the low complexity keeps this from being a significant deficiency.
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% and drama_id has no per-parameter documentation. The description minimally compensates by establishing that the tool operates on '一部剧' (a drama), which clarifies drama_id's referent, but it adds nothing about where to source the id or its constraints beyond the schema.
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 states a clear verb (查/check), a specific resource (a drama's budget status), and enumerates the returned fields (budget/spent/remaining). The budget-status focus makes it distinguishable from siblings like get_cost_estimate or get_drama, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.
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 only guidance is '免费' (free), which speaks to cost rather than when to use this tool versus alternatives. It gives no conditions, no exclusion criteria, and no hint about when to prefer get_budget_status over related tools like get_cost_estimate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.