Connects an AI agent to a 250game room as an ordinary player, joining before play starts and spectating if a new ID arrives mid-game. Returns a playerId for reconnection.
以普通玩家身份连接250游戏。开局前加入；开局后新ID只能旁观。返回playerId供重连使用。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | ws:// 或 wss:// 地址；省略时使用连接配置中的默认游戏后端或 GAME_SERVER_URL | |
| name | No | AI玩家 | |
| room | Yes | ||
| playerId | No | 自己的固定唯一ID；省略则自动生成 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the join/spectate timing behavior and that a playerId is returned for reconnection, but it does not cover edge cases such as room-full, invalid room, or authentication requirements.
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 three short clauses with no waste. The core action is front-loaded, followed by the critical timing constraint and return value.
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?
For a four-parameter join tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, timing rule, and returned playerId. It is mostly complete, though it could mention error or room-availability behavior.
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 50%, with url and playerId documented in the schema. The description adds meaning for playerId by explaining it is returned for reconnection, but it does not clarify the room or name parameters, leaving half the parameters without added semantic guidance.
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 and resource: connect/join the 250 game as an ordinary player. It also clarifies the timing constraint and the returned playerId, making the core action immediately understandable.
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 gives explicit timing guidance: join before the game starts; after the start, new IDs can only spectate. This clearly frames when this tool is appropriate, though it does not name an alternative tool for late-joining players.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.