set_dispatch_outcome【需要登录】对已接受的安排反馈用户告知的结果：HELPFUL 有帮助、OK 一般、NO_REPLY 没回复、NO_SHOW 没聊上、NOT_FIT 不合适。可能完成步骤、安排下一步或补排人，消耗平台 LLM 并可能通知。不要根据已读或时间猜测用户结果。结果不明或超时后先查询现值，不要自动重发；服务没有持久请求去重键。 用 get_my_dispatch 核对。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | ||
| outcome | Yes | ||
| arrangementId | Yes |
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?
Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description discloses that the call may complete steps, schedule next steps, or re-dispatch people, consumes platform LLM, may trigger notifications, requires login, and has no persistent dedup key so automatic retries risk duplicates. The non-idempotency warning is especially valuable and consistent with the annotations.
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 dense but logically ordered: auth → purpose → outcome values → side effects → constraints → verification pointer. Every sentence carries operational value; the length is justified by the tool's non-idempotent, side-effectful nature, though it requires careful reading.
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 write operation with no output schema, the description covers auth, outcome semantics, side effects, dedup/retry behavior, and verification. Minor gaps: the return value is unspecified and the note parameter's purpose is not explained, but the explicit get_my_dispatch pointer mitigates the return-value gap.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden and compensates well by translating all five enum values into concrete meanings (有帮助/一般/没回复/没聊上/不合适) and clarifying the arrangementId context. The optional note parameter (maxLength 300) is left unexplained, which is the only gap.
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 states a specific verb (反馈/report) and resource (已接受的安排/accepted arrangement), and enumerates all five outcome values with Chinese meanings. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like accept_dispatch_arrangement, decline_dispatch_arrangement, and report_dispatch.
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 explicitly scopes use to accepted arrangements, forbids guessing outcomes from read receipts or time, instructs the agent to query the current value when the outcome is unclear or after a timeout instead of auto-retrying, and names get_my_dispatch as the verification tool. This is explicit routing with both when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.
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.