maa_infrast_manageAutomates Arknights base operations such as operator shift rotations, manufacturing, and purchasing to keep infrastructure running without manual scheduling.
基建管理（自动换班、制造、采购等）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| client | No | 客户端类型 | Official |
| 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. 'Manage' and examples like manufacturing and purchasing imply state-changing in-game actions, but the description does not state side effects, resource consumption, prerequisites, or whether operations are reversible.
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 phrase with the core purpose front-loaded and no wasted words. The parenthetical examples add useful scope but remain brief.
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?
Although the parameter set is simple and an output schema exists, this is an unannotated action-oriented umbrella tool among many specific infrastructure siblings. The description does not clarify its exact scope, how it interacts with sibling tools, or what side effects an agent should expect.
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?
There is only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'client' parameter. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 resource domain ('基建管理') and gives examples of included activities (auto shift change, manufacturing, purchasing). However, it does not differentiate this umbrella tool from dedicated siblings such as maa_infrast_production, maa_infrast_purchase, or maa_infrast_trade.
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 parenthetical examples imply some coverage, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling infrastructure tools or when not to use it. The agent is left to infer selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.