get_activity按 id 或 slug 拿活动详情：标题 / 描述 / 时间地点 / organizer / 报名情况。两个参数二选一，slug 优先。
【怎么报名——判据只看 signup，不看 type】
signup 不为空 → 站内能报：用 get_signup_activity 看要填什么、submit_signup 提交。站内报名只有这一条链。（平台自办/承办的赛事也常是 type=COMPETITION，一样在站内报——别拿 type 判。）
signup 为空且 externalUrl 非空 → 这是导入的外部赛事资讯，站内报不了，如实让用户去 externalUrl 那儿报。
两个都空 → 这场就是没开报名，别编一个入口出来。
【相关 resource】opcmenu://activity/{slug}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | 活动 id（cuid） | |
| slug | No | 活动 slug |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/not destructive, and the description adds behavior beyond them: slug takes priority over id, only one of the two params is expected, and the signup field determines whether in-platform signup is possible. It also exposes the related deep link and edge cases.
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 core purpose is front-loaded, and the signup routing is organized as a scannable list. No sentence is filler: the type warning and the 'only one chain' note each address a real failure mode.
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 output schema, the description supplies the return-value scope (title, description, time/location, organizer, signup status) and covers the main edge cases an agent will encounter. The tool definition is effectively self-contained 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?
The schema only defines id and slug; the description adds the critical constraint '两个参数二选一，slug 优先'. This tells the agent that one parameter is needed and which to prefer when both are supplied, which is not inferable from the schema.
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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair ('按 id 或 slug 拿活动详情') and lists the returned fields. It also distinguishes the tool from get_signup_activity by stating that signup-specific actions belong to that sibling. The title '查活动详情' is consistent.
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 provides an explicit decision tree: if signup is non-empty, use get_signup_activity and submit_signup; if empty and externalUrl exists, direct the user to externalUrl; if both are empty, there is no signup entry. It also warns not to rely on the type field, which prevents a common misrouting.
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.
Each tool has a clearly documented purpose, often with explicit 'when to use' guidance and cross-references, making the vast majority easy to tell apart. A few clusters (get_my_brief, get_my_positioning, get_my_work, get_my_dispatch) and data-overlapping get_my_card vs get_my_profile require careful reading, but descriptions are detailed enough to prevent serious misselection.
The overwhelming majority follow snake_case verb_noun conventions (create_product, update_need, list_my_signups). Minor deviations include noun-only feed names (personalized_feed, random_feed), inconsistency between 'prefs' and 'preferences' in notification tools, and a mix of update_* and set_* for mutations, but the pattern remains predictable overall.
137 tools is an extreme mismatch for any MCP server, far exceeding the 50+ threshold for a score of 1. Even with a broad multi-domain platform, this volume makes tool selection and navigation impractical and heavily burdens the agent's context window.
The surface covers full lifecycles for needs, products, activities/signups, conversations, collaboration goals/tasks, dispatch, profile/onboarding, and supporting resources like companies, parks, policies, and ratings. Deliberate omissions (no user-post creation, no organizer profile editing via agent) are explicitly documented, so core workflows have no obvious dead ends.