maa_initInitializes MAA configuration for Arknights automation, optionally naming a profile and forcing overwrite. Use it to set up or reset settings before running game tasks.
初始化 MAA 配置
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| force | No |
| 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 disclosure burden. It does not say whether init overwrites an existing configuration, whether it is idempotent, or what the 'force' flag changes—despite the presence of a 'force' parameter strongly implying destructive/reinitialization behavior.
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 single short phrase is front-loaded and free of waste, but it is under-specified rather than well-scoped. Brevity here costs more clarity than it saves.
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 an output schema exists (reducing the need to describe returns), the definition leaves the core behavior—what gets initialized, overwrite semantics, and the effect of 'force'—undocumented in a large sibling set with no annotations or parameter descriptions to fall back on.
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 0% for two parameters ('name' and 'force'), and the description mentions neither. It does not clarify what 'name' selects (a config profile?) or what 'force' overrides, leaving both parameters entirely undocumented.
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 verb and resource ('initialize MAA configuration'), which is more than a bare name restatement, but gives no detail about what is initialized or how it differs from close siblings like maa_startup and maa_install. An agent cannot distinguish init from startup/install without guessing.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the 30+ siblings. The agent must infer whether init must precede maa_startup or is optional.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.