Retrieves the current playback queue summary and up to five song IDs after the current position, so you can inspect upcoming tracks.
读取当前队列摘要及当前位置之后至多五首ID
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_queue"
}
}| 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, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond that: the upcoming-tracks list is capped at five IDs, so the agent knows the output is bounded. It does not describe what the '摘要' contains, whether an empty queue is an error, or any auth/session requirements.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the 'at most five' limit is placed where it will be read. It is arguably over-compressed — one more clause defining '摘要' would cost little and add real value — but nothing present is wasted.
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?
With zero parameters and annotations covering the safety profile, the remaining burden is describing the return shape, and there is no output schema. The description only says 'queue summary' plus up to five upcoming IDs, leaving an agent unsure what the summary actually includes (current track, position, total count?) before it commits to the call.
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 and the schema is an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly adds no parameter noise.
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 (读取/read) and a specific resource (当前队列摘要 + 当前位置之后至多五首 ID), which no sibling tool covers — the closest siblings (netease_status, netease_song_detail) deal with player state or track metadata, not the queue. The only softness is '摘要' (summary), whose contents are never defined.
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 only implied: an agent can infer it should call this when it needs to know what is queued next, but the description never says when to prefer it over netease_status or netease_song_detail, nor any prerequisite such as an active playback session. No explicit when/when-not guidance is present.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.