maa_convertConvert Arknights MAA configuration files between JSON, YAML, and TOML formats by specifying an input file and optional output format or path.
转换配置文件格式（JSON/YAML/TOML）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| format | No | 输出格式（json/yaml/toml） | |
| input_file | Yes | 输入文件路径 | |
| output_file | No | 输出文件路径（可选） |
| 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 supplied, so the description carries the full burden and does not meet it: it doesn't say whether an existing output file is overwritten, whether the target format can be inferred from the file extension, or what happens on malformed input. The only behavioral signal is the list of supported formats.
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?
A single short sentence with no filler, and the resource and supported formats are front-loaded. It is efficient rather than padded, though it verges on under-specification.
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 schema and output schema cover the mechanics, but key behavioral questions remain unanswered for a file-writing tool: how `format` behaves when omitted (default is an empty string), and whether `output_file` null means in-place or stdout. For a tool with no annotations, the description should resolve at least the format-inference rule.
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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema; the description adds nothing beyond restating the format values. Baseline 3 is appropriate, and notably it does not clarify the ambiguous empty-string default for `format`.
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?
States a concrete verb+resource: converting configuration file formats, with the supported formats (JSON/YAML/TOML) named in parentheses. Its function is plainly distinct from every sibling (maa_run, maa_install, maa_infrast_* etc.), though it never explicitly contrasts itself with any of them.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus other tools, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The agent must infer that this is the format-conversion utility purely from the verb in the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.