一人行 SoloTeam MCP

Does 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 platform-level caveats — write actions commit immediately, write endpoints are IP-rate-limited, and actions are charged to the owner's credit — but says nothing about this tool's own behavior (read-only, return format, size). The caveats are relevant context but describe sibling write tools rather than this one.

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 compact clauses with no filler, and the resource identity is front-loaded ahead of the caveats. Nothing is padded, though the telegraphic style leaves some sentences under-explained.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema document fetch, the description is essentially sufficient — the agent knows what it gets and when to read it. The only gap is that the write/rate-limit warnings concern adjacent tools rather than clarifying this call's own result.

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, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; baseline 4 applies. The empty schema is fully consistent with a document-retrieval tool.

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 — the full text of the alliance code of conduct (联盟行为公约全文) — so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not differentiate itself from nearest siblings like soloteam_gov or soloteam_meta, which could plausibly hold overlapping governance content, so it stops short of a 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?

"接入前必读" establishes a clear usage context (read before integrating/onboarding), which is genuine when-to-use guidance. However, it names no alternatives and gives no when-not conditions, leaving the routing decision implicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that results are public and ordered by verification priority plus heat, but says nothing about pagination behavior, total result counts, rate limits, or whether any auth is needed beyond 'public'.

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 that front-loads the resource and scope, then the returned fields and ordering. It is efficient with no filler, though cramming scope, fields, and sort into one sentence 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 simple two-parameter read-only listing with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns and how results are ordered. It omits result-count and pagination semantics, which an agent would need to page correctly, leaving a gap for a tool with no annotations.

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 both parameters (limit 1-200 default 50, offset default 0) are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the sort order, not parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 resource (member directory) and its scope (public, verified one-person-company members), plus the fields returned and sort order. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling soloteam_member (singular), so the agent must guess which to call.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named. The only usage signal is the word 'public', which implies browsing rather than filtering, but nothing tells the agent how this differs from soloteam_member or soloteam_match.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the data is public (公开), implying a read-only listing over open data, and it clarifies the fit=1 filter's intent. It says nothing about pagination, result volume, rate limits, or freshness, which are the remaining behavioral traits an agent would want for a search endpoint.

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 that front-loads what the tool returns before listing the filters; nothing is padded. It is appropriately sized, though the fit=1 clause could have been folded more cleanly rather than left as a trailing fragment.

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 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers only part of what an agent needs: it explains three filters and skips paging (limit/offset) and the status filter's behavior. Meaningful but incomplete for the tool's actual surface.

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 71%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description usefully names the filterable dimensions (category/region/keyword) and expands fit=1 beyond the schema's terse 只看小微友好单 into 'small orders suitable for a one-person company'. It adds no meaning for limit/offset/status, so it stays at the 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?

The description names a concrete resource and scope: 政府采购商机线索（公开）, i.e. public government-procurement leads, and states that results can be filtered by category/region/keyword. That is clearly distinguishable from the other soloteam_* siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with any of them.

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 implies when a filter is useful by explaining that fit=1 restricts results to small orders suited to a one-person company, which is a genuine usage hint for a solo-operator audience. However, no alternative tool is named and no when-not-to-use condition is given, so guidance remains implicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that an API Key is required, which is useful, but says nothing about read-only semantics, pagination, result volume, or what the notifications contain structurally.

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 front-loaded line, which is efficient, but it repeats the same information twice: '（需 key）' and '（需 API Key）'. Removing the duplicate would tighten the definition without losing content.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema read tool this is the minimum viable: the resource and auth prerequisite are stated. It stops short of disclosing read-only behavior or return characteristics, which an agent with no annotations would benefit from.

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, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to compensate for; no parameter-level semantics are needed.

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 the resource (收件箱/inbox) and enumerates what it contains – 打招呼/应征/回复 notifications – which distinguishes it from siblings like soloteam_member or soloteam_directory. No explicit verb, but the resource and content scope are unambiguous.

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 only guidance is the prerequisite '需 API Key' – no statement of when to use this inbox versus checking soloteam_conduct, soloteam_member, or other sibling tools. An agent gets the auth requirement but no routing logic.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a real behavioral trait beyond structured data — an API key is required — and that results are score-sorted. However it says nothing about whether the operation is read-only, what the scores mean, or limits on result count.

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 front-loaded sentence stating the core mechanism, with the API key prerequisite parenthetically attached. The requirement is needlessly stated twice ("需 key" and "需 API Key"), which is minor redundancy but not bloat.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the mechanism and the auth prerequisite, which is the essential information. Yet with no parameters or output schema to lean on, the description could reasonably explain the score scale or result ordering semantics and does not.

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 empty at 100% coverage, so the baseline of 4 applies. There are no parameters for the description to clarify.

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: computes complementary member matches via a bidirectional give/want intersection, with score ranking. This is meaningfully more precise than a generic 'match' name, though it never contrasts itself against sibling tools like soloteam_directory or soloteam_member.

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 only usage information is a repeated prerequisite ("需 key" / "需 API Key"). There is no guidance on when to prefer this over soloteam_directory or soloteam_member, nor when it should not be used. Prerequisite disclosure alone is not usage guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose a real behavioral constraint — an API key is required — which is useful auth context. However it never says whether this is a read-only operation, whether it hits rate limits, or what happens without a key, so the safety profile remains unstated.

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 compact line with the scope front-loaded before the parenthetical details. The key requirement is stated twice ('需 key' and '需 API Key'), which is redundant, but the overall footprint is appropriately small.

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 usefully enumerates the returned fields (homepage, contact info, verification status), compensating for the absent schema. What remains missing is usage context relative to its many siblings, but for a self-lookup tool the definition is close to sufficient.

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, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter detail because none exists.

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 resource and scope: the caller's own identity overview, enumerating the data it covers (directory homepage, contact info, verification status). The word '本人/当前身份' distinguishes it from the general member-directory sibling, though it never names soloteam_member or soloteam_directory explicitly, so sibling routing is only implied.

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 only guidance is the prerequisite '(需 API Key)'. There is no statement of when to call this versus soloteam_member, soloteam_directory, or soloteam_meta, and no exclusions. The agent must infer that 'me' means the authenticated caller's own profile.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about read-only nature, permission/auth requirements, or what happens when the member is not found. The only behavioral hint ('精确' exact match, same source as by-name) is already stated in the schema descriptions, so it adds nothing beyond structured fields.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource before the parameter rule. No filler, nothing redundant.

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 no-output-schema read tool this is largely adequate, but with zero annotations the description should at least confirm it is a non-mutating lookup and sketch what 'profile details' returns, which it leaves entirely vague.

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%, so baseline would be 3, but the description adds real semantics by declaring the two lookup keys are mutually exclusive alternatives ('二选一'). The schema shows both parameters optional with no oneOf constraint, so this clarification prevents passing both or neither.

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?

Names a clear verb and resource: retrieve a single member's profile details (查单个成员主页详情), which is distinguishable from the listing sibling soloteam_directory. It does not explicitly name any sibling, so differentiation is left to inference, but the scope ('single member') is specific enough for correct selection.

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 selection guidance between the two parameters ('按 name 或 id 二选一'), which is genuinely useful. However, it offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus soloteam_directory or soloteam_me, and no mention of error behavior when neither/both are supplied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and transparently lists what the tool provides (positioning, tool list, auth model, docs entry), effectively implying a read-only informational call. It does not explicitly state that no side effects occur or whether authentication is required to invoke it, leaving minor gaps.

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 terse sentences, front-loading what the tool is before the usage instruction. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 zero-param meta/onboarding tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, content categories, and first-use timing. It could clarify authentication requirements or response format, but the essentials are present.

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, so there is no parameter behavior to document; the empty schema is consistent. Baseline for no-param tools is 4, and the description adds no misleading parameter information.

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 the resource as SoloTeam platform meta-information and enumerates its contents (positioning, tool list, auth model, docs entry). It lacks an explicit verb such as 'retrieve' and does not name a sibling, but the meta scope clearly differentiates it from the functional soloteam_* tools.

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?

Explicitly says to call this first during initial onboarding ('首次接入先调这个'), giving a clear context for use. It does not name when not to use it or point to alternative tools, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no pagination behavior for limit/offset, no auth requirements, no ordering, no indication of what a response contains. The only behavioral hint is '(公开)' indicating public visibility.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the resource type and its public scope. It is efficient, though arguably too terse given the behavioral gaps.

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 paginated list tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot tell how results are paginated or ordered, or what the tool actually returns.

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 0% and both parameters (limit, offset) are undocumented in both the schema and the description. While their names follow common pagination conventions, the description adds zero meaning about defaults, maximums, or ordering semantics, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (问答/互助帖, Q&A/mutual-help posts) and scopes it as public, which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like soloteam_conduct, soloteam_projects, or soloteam_teams. However, it never states the operation verb — whether this lists, searches, or retrieves posts — so the agent must infer the action.

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 use this tool versus the ten sibling tools, nor any stated preconditions. The '(公开)' annotation implies it is the public-facing view of posts, but no alternative or exclusion is named.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses public visibility and that returned items include industry tags and status, but omits read-only nature, pagination behavior, rate limits, and error handling.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity leaves important operational details unaddressed.

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 low-complexity list tool with two undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It identifies the public scope and some returned content, but gives no pagination semantics or return format guidance.

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 limit and offset, and the description does not mention pagination parameters at all. With two undocumented parameters, the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 public project plaza containing member-posted collaboration/outsourcing projects with industry tags and status. It distinguishes the content from generic posts or teams, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternative tools such as soloteam_posts or soloteam_match. Only the public scope is stated, leaving the agent to infer usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does add real context: results are public-only, the enum of statuses, and the notable rule that recruiting teams past their deadline are flagged expired:true rather than hidden. It omits auth requirements, pagination limits, and ordering behavior.

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 compact sentence with the scope front-loaded and the expired-flag caveat appended, so the most important routing information comes first. Semicolon-joined clauses stay readable without padding.

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?

Covers the key domain semantics (public scope, status lifecycles, expired flag) needed to call the tool correctly. Missing pagination guidance is not painful for a tool with an obvious limit/offset pair, and no output schema exists to require return-value explanation.

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 50% (q and status documented in schema); the description restates keyword search and the status values without adding syntax or defaults. It provides nothing for the undocumented limit/offset parameters, so it neither compensates for the gap nor falls below 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 resource (in-progress team collaborations, public) and the statuses covered (recruiting/formed/active/done/dissolved), so the agent knows what it retrieves. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings such as soloteam_projects or soloteam_directory, leaving overlap ambiguity.

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 notes keyword searchability but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and never names an alternative tool or exclusion criterion. An agent must infer from the sibling list which of the several listing tools to pick.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.