Get a repository's table of contents as a flat array, navigable via uuid, parent_uuid, and child_uuid, to map knowledge base structure.
Get repo TOC tree (flat array, navigable via uuid/parent_uuid/child_uuid). GET /repos/:id/toc. 详见 references/api/toc_api.md
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| raw | No | Return raw full JSON (default false, returns trimmed fields) | |
| book_id | Yes | Repository ID (numeric) or namespace like group/book_slug (required) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return structure (flat array with uuid/parent_uuid/child_uuid navigation), which is valuable given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about auth requirements, scope, 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?
Front-loaded in a single tight sentence pair plus an endpoint and a doc pointer. Nothing is wasted, though the external markdown reference adds little for a tool this simple.
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 simple read-only getter with a fully documented 2-param schema, the description covers purpose and return shape adequately. Absent are usage context and behavioral caveats, which keep it short of a 5.
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 100% for both parameters, so the schema already documents book_id and raw. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, making 3 the appropriate baseline.
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+resource ('Get repo TOC tree') and clarifies the return shape is a flat array navigable via uuid/parent_uuid/child_uuid, with the underlying endpoint. This is well beyond a restatement of the name, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling yuque_web_get_toc.
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 guidance on when to call this versus alternatives (e.g., yuque_web_get_toc, yuque_update_toc, yuque_batch_update_toc) and no stated prerequisites. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.