studio_catalogReads the creative studio catalog to identify implemented versus missing role-library, script, and storyboard capabilities, helping agents plan work using only callable tools.
读取网页角色库、剧本、故事板等功能的证据与缺口。此目录仅供规划，不能把 implemented=false 的条目当可调用工具。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is known. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond that: the output is planning evidence, and entries flagged implemented=false are not callable tools — a critical interpretation rule the annotations cannot express. It doesn't describe the shape of the evidence/gap records, but the core behavioral caveat is disclosed.
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 sentences with zero filler: the first states what is read, the second states the planning-only constraint. The constraint, which is the operationally important part, is not buried.
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 parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does so at a high level ('证据与缺口') plus the key implemented=false field semantics. It could say slightly more about how to interpret evidence/gap records, but an agent has enough to call it and read the result correctly.
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 of 4 applies; the description correctly implies a parameterless full-catalog read.
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 names a specific resource (a catalog of studio features: web character library, scripts, storyboards) and the verb (read evidence and gaps), so the agent knows it returns a planning inventory rather than live data. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling 'capabilities' tool, which an agent could plausibly confuse with this one.
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 an explicit usage frame ('此目录仅供规划') and a clear prohibition ('不能把 implemented=false 的条目当可调用工具'), which tells the agent when not to act on the output. It stops short of naming an alternative (e.g. capabilities or action_schema) for when live capability data is needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.