查符文戰場英文卡面名詞的中文譯名與說明（例如 Might、Rune、Conquer）。
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"term": "<term>"
},
"name": "lookup_term"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| term | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose what the tool returns (Chinese translation plus explanation), which is useful, but says nothing about match behavior (exact vs. fuzzy, case sensitivity) or what happens when a term is not found.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the clarifying examples are folded in without waste. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.
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 one-parameter lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and rough return content, but leaves gaps on lookup semantics (exact match?) and failure behavior. Adequate but not thorough for a tool with zero structured support.
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% and the single parameter 'term' has no schema-level documentation. The description partially compensates by giving example values (Might, Rune, Conquer), clarifying the expected vocabulary, but does not specify format, casing, or language of input.
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 verb (查 = look up) and a precise resource (English card-face terms from the Rune Battlefield and their Chinese translation/explanation), with concrete examples (Might, Rune, Conquer). It is clearly a glossary/terminology lookup, distinct from get_faq, get_chapter, get_banlist, and search_rules, though it does not explicitly draw that boundary against search_rules.
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 by the word '查' plus the term examples; there is no explicit statement of when to pick this over search_rules or get_faq. An agent can reasonably infer it is for terminology lookups, but no alternatives or exclusions are named.
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.