yunxin_im_robotManage Yunxin IM chat robots by listing, viewing, creating, updating, and starting or stopping them; status changes require confirm=true.
聊天机器人：list 列表、get 详情、create 新增、update 修改、status 启停。启停必须 confirm: true。channel=1 默认机器人，channel=2 自定义机器人。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app | No | ||
| data | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| action | Yes | ||
| offset | No | ||
| params | No | ||
| channel | No | ||
| confirm | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description usefully adds that status changes require confirm: true, which is real behavioral context. It does not disclose what create/update/status affect, whether changes are reversible, or that read-style actions coexist in a destructive-annotated tool.
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 line that packs the action list, the confirm rule, and the channel mapping without filler. Slightly terse given the complexity it must cover.
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 an 8-parameter, destructive-annotated mutation tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the action surface and confirm guard but leaves the shape of data/params and pagination entirely implicit. Adequate but incomplete for the complexity.
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 0%, and the description explains only three of eight parameters: the action enum, channel (1=default, 2=custom), and confirm. The nested data/params payloads plus app, limit, and offset remain undocumented in both schema and description, leaving a meaningful gap.
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 names the resource (IM robots) and enumerates every action the tool supports (list/get/create/update/status), so an agent understands the multi-action surface immediately. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with siblings like yunxin_im_user or yunxin_im_digital_human.
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?
The action glossary implies which operation to use for which intent, and the confirm requirement for status is stated. However, there is no guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling tools or on prerequisites for each action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.