搜尋符文戰場（Riftbound TCG）英文版新手指南的規則解說（繁體中文），回傳章節與段落。
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": {
"query": "<query>"
},
"name": "search_rules"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | 關鍵字，例如 Hold、sideboard、同語言 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return shape (chapters and paragraphs) and the corpus searched, which is useful, but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or pagination/size of results.
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 leading with the verb, with no filler. It is dense and avoids wasted words, though the parenthetical language notes make it slightly heavy.
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 search tool, the description states the corpus, language, and return format, which is sufficient. With no output schema, it compensates by describing what is returned (chapters and paragraphs).
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?
Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents 'query' and its keyword examples. The description adds no syntax or matching-behavior detail beyond what the schema provides, 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?
States a specific verb (搜尋/search) and a precise resource (rules explanations from the Riftbound TCG English beginner's guide), plus the output form (chapters and paragraphs). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like lookup_term or get_faq.
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?
No when-to-use guidance or conditions selecting this over get_chapter, lookup_term, or get_faq are given. The searchable scope is implied by the description 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.