get_park按 id 查园区完整详情：补贴明细（类型 / 金额 / 条件）+ 运营方 + 地址坐标 + 入驻主理人 + 渠道 + 信源 + 最近新闻。查不到 found=false。
【口径】园区是运营维护的目录数据，站内没有用户打卡/点评（那套 UGC 已下线），别编「有 N 人打过卡」「评分 4.5」这类内容。
【相关】list_city_policies 查所在城市政策红利。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | 园区 id（cuid） |
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 already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond them: 'found=false' when not found, and the crucial data-caliber warning that UGC check-ins/reviews are offline and must not be invented. This directly helps the agent avoid hallucinated content, which is a strong behavioral disclosure.
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 well-structured: a front-loaded purpose sentence with a compact field list, followed by a clearly labeled '口径' section and a '相关' section. Every sentence earns its place, and the anti-hallucination caveat is placed where it will be noticed.
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 present, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does: it lists the substantive content areas and the failure behavior ('查不到 found=false'). For a simple get-by-id tool with a single required parameter, this is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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%: the single parameter 'id' is already documented as '园区 id（cuid）'. The description only restates that the lookup is by id and adds no new format, constraints, or semantics beyond what the schema provides. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 and resource: '按 id 查园区完整详情', then enumerates the exact fields returned (subsidies, operator, address/coordinates, creators, channels, sources, news). This clearly distinguishes it from nearby list-style siblings like list_parks, and '查不到 found=false' further pins down its behavior.
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 makes the usage context clear: use with an id to fetch complete park details. It also names 'list_city_policies 查所在城市政策红利' as an alternative for city-level policy needs. It does not explicitly list exclusions for all sibling tools (e.g., list_parks or list_park_news), so it falls just short of a 5.
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.