List items in the Yuque recycle bin to review or recover deleted documents, notes, or repositories. Supports pagination and filtering by target type.
List recycle bin items (requires cookie+ctoken). GET /mine/recycles. 详见 references/api/recycle_api.md
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Page size, max 100, default 50 | |
| offset | No | Pagination offset, default 0 | |
| target_type | No | Target type filter: Doc, Note, Repo |
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 discloses the auth requirement and HTTP route, which is genuine behavioral context, but says nothing about pagination behavior, rate limits, or what fields come back in a recycle item.
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?
Three short clauses, front-loaded with the purpose, then auth, then endpoint. The Chinese reference pointer is compact and potentially useful, though it assumes the reader can locate that file.
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 3-parameter listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, auth, and route but omits return-shape expectations and pagination semantics. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent would want filled.
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%, so limit, offset, and target_type are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 and resource ('List recycle bin items') with an unambiguous name matching the operation. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling restore_recycle/destroy_recycle, but the read-only listing intent is clear from the verb.
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?
The description gives an authentication prerequisite ('requires cookie+ctoken') and the underlying endpoint, which implies when it can be called. It does not say when to prefer this over other listing tools or how it relates to restore/destroy operations on the same recycle items.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.