Clicks the screen to advance visual novel dialogue or trigger scene interactions, using optional book and player identifiers to track progress per agent.
Click the screen. / 点一下画面
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| book | No | 书的 slug（见 galbook_books）。服务端设了默认书时可省略 | |
| agent | No | 你的玩家名（1-40 位字母数字/中日文/_-.）。服务端设了默认名时可省略 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing about consequences: whether the click advances the story, consumes a choice opportunity, has side effects, or fails when no scene is loaded. Only the bare notion of an interaction is conveyed.
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?
It is extremely short and front-loaded with no filler, but this brevity is under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness. The bilingual duplication adds no information beyond the single English sentence.
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 annotations, no output schema, and a behavior that is entirely opaque, the description should explain what a click does and what the agent gets back. Instead it provides only a one-line action label, leaving the tool's role in the galbook workflow undefined.
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% and both parameters (book, agent) have clear inline descriptions including their optionality when server defaults are set. The description adds no additional meaning, but the schema already does the work, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
"Click the screen" essentially restates the tool name galbook_click, describing a physical action rather than the game-state effect (advance dialogue, dismiss overlay, etc.). It gives no way to distinguish it from siblings such as galbook_next, galbook_choose, or galbook_look, which an agent must choose among.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no statement of when clicking is preferred over galbook_next or galbook_choose, no prerequisites, and no exclusion conditions. The agent is left to infer the interaction model from the sibling list alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.