get_statsAggregate local manuscript, task, and registration data with environment self-checks, and optionally fetch read-only Qimao backend long- and short-story lists over HTTP.
汇总本地文稿库/任务/登记 + 环境自检；remote=true 时再读一次七猫后台的真实长篇与短篇列表（只读 HTTP）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| remote | No | 是否联网读取后台数据，默认 false |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the operation is a read-only HTTP call and that remote adds a second backend read, but it omits auth requirements (many siblings require login_qimao/set_qimao_cookies), failure behavior, and any cost/latency note for the network path.
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 dense sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose (汇总 local data) and appending the conditional remote behavior. Nothing is redundant, though the dense packing of multiple resources slightly reduces 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 one-optional-boolean tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and the remote flag adequately. It nonetheless leaves the auth/prerequisite context for the network path unstated, which matters given the surrounding login/cookie siblings.
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 coverage is 100%, giving baseline 3, and the description adds real meaning beyond the schema by specifying that remote triggers reading the actual long-form and short-form lists from Qimao rather than just any backend data.
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 (汇总/summarize) over a specific set of resources (本地文稿库/任务/登记 + 环境自检) and clarifies the remote branch. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from statistics siblings like get_book_statistics_qimao or get_book_income_qimao, so an agent must infer the distinction.
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: the agent learns that remote=true adds backend reads, but there is no statement of when to prefer this general summary over the dedicated statistics/income tools, nor any prerequisite (e.g., login/cookies) for the remote path.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.