memkin

Troubleshoot (Playbook)

troubleshoot

Diagnose a symptom by generating a step-by-step troubleshooting playbook with ordered steps, branch explanations, citations, and identified gaps.

Instructions

troubleshoot

Walk through a troubleshooting playbook in one shot.

When to use: '怎么排查 X' — pull the matching playbook pages, ordered along their precedes chain, into a step-by-step procedure with branch meanings ('命中 X → 含义/下一步'). When NOT to use: general recall; use recall/query. Returns: a SynthesisResult with ordered steps + [n] citations + gaps. On error: rephrase the symptom or save a playbook page first.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "troubleshoot"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes	Symptom or problem to troubleshoot, for example `智驾无法激活`.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses pulling playbook pages along the precedes chain, returning a SynthesisResult with steps, citations, and gaps, and error handling. Missing explicit read-only/state-modifying indication, but otherwise transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Well-structured with sections, front-loaded with main purpose. Each sentence adds value; no redundancy. Length appropriate for the tool's complexity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the single parameter, no output schema, but description explains return type (SynthesisResult with steps, citations, gaps). Covers when to use, when not, error handling, and output structure. Complete for effective use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with one parameter query described. The description adds value beyond schema by providing an example ('智驾无法激活') and explaining how the parameter is used (symptom/problem).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool walks through a troubleshooting playbook in one shot, with a specific verb ('walk through') and resource ('playbook'). It distinguishes from siblings like recall/query via explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states when to use ('怎么排查 X') and when NOT to use ('general recall; use recall/query'), with clear alternatives and error handling advice ('rephrase the symptom or save a playbook page first').

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.