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 | ||
| phone | Yes | ||
| user_name | Yes | ||
| activity_id | Yes |
| 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 burden. It discloses that registration requires payment to lock the seat, and that the return value contains an order number, payment link, and QR code URL. This goes beyond a simple 'register' statement and informs the agent of the consequential workflow.
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-organized and not verbose. It opens with the purpose, then gives the usage condition, then lists arguments with explanations, and closes with the return format. Every section contributes useful information, though the argument list could be more compact.
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?
Given the tool has 4 parameters (3 required), an output schema, and the description explains each parameter and return behavior, it is sufficiently complete for correct invocation. It lacks details on error cases or idempotency, but those are not essential for a first call.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly: each parameter is explained with purpose and source (e.g., activity_id from query_activities, phone for notifications/check-in, note for optional requests). This adds clear meaning beyond the bare 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 states a specific verb ('报名' / register) and resource ('活动' / activity), and includes a trigger condition ('当用户确定要报名某个活动时'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_activity, check_in, or query_activities.
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 explicitly says when to call the tool ('当用户确定要报名某个活动时'). It also mentions the post-registration payment step, and the argument description for activity_id instructs to get it from query_activities. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools.
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.