列出或筛选 action，支持按 task、group、status、sideEffect、executionMode 过滤。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task | No | 可选任务 ID，例如 family_space.manage_room | |
| group | No | 可选分组 ID，例如 family_space | |
| limit | No | 最多返回多少个 action | |
| cursor | No | 分页游标；来自上一次返回的 nextCursor | |
| status | No | 可选 action 状态，例如 confirmed、candidate | |
| sideEffect | No | 可选副作用等级，例如 S0、S2、S3 | |
| executionMode | No | 可选执行模式，例如 cloud_api、manual_assist |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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 full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing beyond the schema. It does not say the operation is read-only, how results are ordered, how pagination interacts with filters, or what a filtered-out status means.
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 front-loading the verb and resource with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity comes partly from omitting information rather than from tight editing.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the filters are named. However, with zero annotations and no behavioral detail about a paginated list tool, the definition is only minimally sufficient 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 100%, with each of the seven parameters documented including examples, so the baseline is 3. The description names five of the filter parameters but adds no syntax or semantics beyond what the schema already provides, and omits limit/cursor entirely.
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 (列出/筛选) and resource (action) and enumerates the filterable dimensions, so the agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like list_tasks, list_groups, or get_action_schema beyond the noun '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 statement of when to use this versus get_action_schema or execute_task, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The mention of filterable fields implies usage but leaves the agent to infer the routing decision entirely.
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.