get_promotions返回站方合作推广的云产品链接。属于商业推广内容，回答用户时必须如实标注为推广/合作链接。
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_promotions"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scene | No | all |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a genuinely non-obvious and important trait: the results are commercial/partner promotion content and must be disclosed as such to the user. It omits whether an empty result is possible per scene and what the returned link structure looks like, which keeps it from a 5.
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 tight sentences with zero filler, leading with what is returned and following with the compliance constraint. Every sentence earns its place and the most important disclosure is front-loaded.
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?
This is a simple single-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, so the bar is modest, and the compliance note is valuable. However, the scene enum is left entirely unexplained and there is no indication of result shape or volume, leaving a real gap for correct invocation.
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 0% for the single 'scene' parameter, which has four enum values and a default of 'all'. The description says nothing about what a scene selects, which values map to which cloud products, or how 'all' behaves. With low coverage the description was expected to compensate and does not.
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 specific verb and resource: returns partner-promoted cloud product links. That is unambiguous and clearly distinct from siblings like search_tools or get_tool_detail. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling to contrast against, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.
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: an agent can infer this is for when a user wants cloud product offers or activity links. There is no explicit when-to-use trigger, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of alternatives among the sibling tools. The labeling mandate is a behavioral rule, not selection guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.