Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gametrans

gametrans

by Drhushi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

ui_announce

Destructive

Publish a direct message to the user as an agent, specifying info, success, warning, or error severity and optional project or workdir context.

Instructions

以 agent 身份直接向用户发布一条信息

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "ui_announce"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
messageNo要告诉用户的话
projectNo游戏项目根目录（默认当前目录）
workdirNo工作区目录，默认 <项目>/.gametrans
severityNo级别

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.1

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations supply the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), and the description adds the useful nuance that the message goes 'directly' to the user from the agent identity. However, it does not explain why an announce tool is destructive, whether the message persists, or how severity affects delivery, leaving the destructive hint uncontextualized.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though being this terse is also the source of the missing usage and behavioral detail.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the 100%-covered schema and present annotations carry most of the load, but the description is silent on severity semantics, persistence, and the unexpected destructive classification. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so message, project, workdir, and the severity enum are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond this baseline, which is the correct default when the schema fully documents the parameters.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb (发布/publish) with a clear resource (一条信息/a message), recipient (用户/user) and identity (以 agent 身份). It is distinguishable from UI siblings like ui_render and ui_views, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description offers no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not name any alternative among the many ui_*/agent_* siblings. The agent must infer that this is for user-facing notifications versus rendered views or status tools.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools