get_recommended_fixesRetrieve highly-rated fixes for debugging issues by setting a minimum rating and result limit. Get reliable solutions for known errors.
获取高评价的有效解决方案
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | 返回数量 | |
| min_rating | No | 最低评分 (0-1) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The Chinese description merely says 'get highly-rated effective solutions,' which implies a read operation but does not explain how results are ordered, how min_rating affects filtering, what 'effective' means, or whether any side effects exist.
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 a single concise sentence with no filler and the core purpose is front-loaded. It is appropriately short for a simple retrieval tool, though it could have used the spare space to add usage or behavioral context.
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?
The tool is simple, has only two documented optional parameters, and an output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required. However, with no behavioral details and no usage guidance, the description is only minimally complete for an agent deciding whether to invoke it.
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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description's 'highly-rated' aligns conceptually with min_rating, but it adds no new meaning or detail beyond what the schema provides.
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 clear verb and resource: retrieve effective solutions that are highly rated. The name 'get_recommended_fixes' aligns with this, so an agent can grasp the core purpose immediately. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like mark_effective or search_case, though the 'recommended/high-rated' qualifier provides some differentiation.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools such as search_case, get_stats, and mark_effective, the absence of explicit context or exclusions leaves the agent to infer usage solely from the name and one-line description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.