list_short_stories_tomatoRetrieve short story lists from the Fanqie Novel author backend; set status to draft to view draft-box entries. Use it to review stories or load drafts for publishing.
读取作者后台短故事列表；status=draft 时读草稿箱。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | all=我的短故事（默认），draft=草稿箱 | |
| page_count | No | ||
| page_index | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says '读取' (read), which implies a safe read-only operation, and maps status=draft to the drafts box, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, return format, authorization requirements, or rate limits.
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?
Two short clauses with no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded before the conditional status behavior, making it easy to scan.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and 67% of parameters undocumented in the schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain pagination parameters or expected return structure, which an agent needs for a list tool with three parameters.
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 only 33%, with status documented but page_count and page_index left undescribed. The description only repeats the status=draft behavior already stated in the schema, adding no meaning for the undocumented pagination parameters.
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-resource pair: reading the author's backend short story list. It distinguishes the tool from sibling list tools by naming 'short stories' rather than novels, chapters, or articles, but it does not explicitly call out alternatives or exclusions.
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 gives one conditional use case: when status=draft, it reads the drafts box. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over other list tools or what happens when status is 'all' beyond the schema default.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.