Fetch a drama's prop library by drama ID, returning each prop's name, type, description, and concept art. Use it to access free, drama-specific props separate from advertising products.
列剧目道具库(每个道具名称/类型/描述/设定图)。★道具库≠广告商品库(add_product/list_products 是带货商品);道具库是剧目道具。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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds useful context (free of charge, semantic distinction from product library), but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, pagination, empty-list handling, or any side effects. The verb '列' implies listing, but safety and response details are left 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?
The description is compact: a core sentence, a parenthetical detailing returned fields, and a prominent 'not the e-commerce library' note. Every element earns its place, though the unusual punctuation and dense phrasing slightly reduce scannability.
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 single-parameter listing tool, the description adequately specifies the resource scope and return contents. It does not cover edge cases like permissions, pagination, or empty results, but the tool's simplicity means an agent can still invoke it correctly.
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%, but there is only one parameter, drama_id, and the description's reference to '剧目' (drama) makes its meaning clear. The schema already establishes it is a positive integer; no deeper parameter explanation is necessary for this simple case.
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 opens with '列剧目道具库' (list the drama's props library), specifies exactly the fields returned (name/type/description/setting image), and explicitly contrasts the tool with add_product/list_products, making the resource and action unambiguous.
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?
It clearly states that this tool is for drama props, not e-commerce products, and names add_product/list_products as the products-oriented alternatives. It does not mention other prop-related siblings like create_prop or generate_prop_sheet, but their mutating/generative nature makes confusion unlikely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.