Read playlist summaries for the current account so you can review saved collections and decide which playlist to play.
读取当前账号的歌单摘要
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": "netease_playlists"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds the useful constraint that it operates on the current account with no parameter to select another. However, it says nothing about return shape, pagination, or whether the summary is truncated, which matters because there is no output schema.
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 short sentence with no filler, and the key scope qualifier (current account) is present. It is efficient but borders on under-specification rather than being genuinely well-structured.
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 read tool with full annotation coverage, the basic call path is clear. But with no output schema, the description should say what a '摘要' contains (names? IDs? track counts?) so an agent can decide whether to call this before netease_playlist_tracks or netease_play_playlist.
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, so there is no parameter semantics burden on the description; the baseline of 4 applies. The 'current account' phrasing usefully clarifies that no account identifier is accepted.
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 concrete verb (读取/read) and resource (歌单摘要/playlist summary) scoped to the current account, which distinguishes it from netease_playlist_tracks (which returns tracks) and netease_play_playlist (which starts playback). It is clear enough to identify the operation, though '摘要' remains undefined in terms of what fields are actually returned.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like netease_playlist_tracks or netease_play_playlist. The 'current account' scoping is the only implied context, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.