用户报名参加活动。
当用户确定要报名某个活动时调用此工具。报名后需要完成支付才能锁定名额。
Args:
activity_id: 活动 ID（从 query_activities 结果中获取）
user_name: 报名人姓名
phone: 手机号（用于接收活动通知和签到）
note: 备注，如饮食禁忌、特殊需求等（可选）
Returns:
JSON 字符串，包含订单号、支付链接和支付二维码 URL
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | 备注，如「带朋友一位」「第一次玩」 | |
| phone | Yes | 报名人手机号，用于活动前联系 | |
| user_name | Yes | 报名人姓名或昵称 | |
| activity_id | Yes | 要报名的活动 ID，从 query_activities 取得。必填 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / activity_id / descriptionAdded value: +"要报名的活动 ID，从 query_activities 取得。必填"Input schema / properties / note / descriptionAdded value: +"备注，如「带朋友一位」「第一次玩」"Input schema / properties / phone / descriptionAdded value: +"报名人手机号，用于活动前联系"Input schema / properties / user_name / descriptionAdded value: +"报名人姓名或昵称"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the important consequence that registration alone does not lock a slot and payment must follow, plus the return payload (order number, payment link, QR code). However, it says nothing about behavior when an activity is full, whether duplicate registrations are possible, or whether/cómo a registration can be cancelled.
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 trigger condition is front-loaded, followed by a brief payment caveat and a clean Args/Returns layout. The Args block largely restates the schema, which is minor redundancy but keeps the definition scannable.
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?
Covers when to call, all required inputs, the payment precondition, and the return shape; the presence of an output schema makes the Returns section redundant but harmless. The main gap is edge-case behavior (full activity, duplicate signup, cancellation) for a mutation tool with no annotations.
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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters and the baseline is 3. The description adds modest extra meaning — phone is for activity notifications and check-in (schema only says pre-event contact), and note covers dietary restrictions/special needs. Useful but marginal over 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?
States a specific verb+resource: '用户报名参加活动' (register a user for an activity), which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like check_in, create_payment, and query_activities. It doesn't explicitly name which sibling to use instead, but the action is unambiguous.
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?
'当用户确定要报名某个活动时调用此工具' gives a clear trigger condition, and the Args section points to query_activities as the source of activity_id, implicitly establishing the lookup-then-register flow. No explicit exclusions or when-not 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.