Filter which chats appear in read results by adding or removing names and selecting allow (whitelist) or block (blacklist) mode. Does not change underlying monitoring behavior.
设置会话关注列表：add/remove 增删会话名，mode 选择 allow（白名单，空=全部）或 block（黑名单，优先级更高）。仅过滤本服务返回的读取结果，不改变底层监听行为。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| add | No | ||
| mode | No | ||
| remove | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does add meaningful context: it discloses that the list only filters read results returned by this service and does not alter underlying monitoring behavior, plus that block outranks allow. However, it omits persistence, permission/auth requirements, and rate limits.
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 a compact, front-loaded statement with the purpose up front and supporting detail in trailing parentheses. The nested colon/parenthesis structure makes it dense but nothing is wasted.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. For a 3-param config tool, the description covers the operation, the mode behavior, and the scope of effect well; the main omission is any note on persistence or permissions.
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, and it largely does: add/remove are explained as adding/removing chat names, and mode is given the allow/block values with their meanings (including the empty=all case for allow). This meaningfully exceeds 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+resource ('设置会话关注列表' / set the chat focus list) and breaks it into concrete operations (add/remove chat names, mode selection). The purpose is clear and distinct from the read/send siblings, though it never explicitly names an alternative tool.
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 explains mode semantics (allow = whitelist with empty meaning all; block = blacklist with higher priority), which hints at usage, but it never states when to reach for this tool versus just reading with the sibling getters. Usage is implied rather than instructed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.