maa_sscopilotAutomates Arknights Stationary Security Service runs from a supplied mission URI, enabling AI assistants to execute and manage 保全派驻 missions through MAA.
自动保全派驻
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| maa_uri | Yes | 保全派驻作业 URI |
| 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, yet it says nothing about side effects, prerequisite state, blocking/long-running behavior, or failure modes for what appears to be an automation-dispatch action.
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?
Six characters with no wasted words, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness — there is no front-loaded statement of purpose an agent could act on.
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?
An output schema does exist, so return values need not be described, but for an automation-launch tool with no annotations and no parameter guidance the description leaves nearly everything an agent needs unanswered.
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% and the single required parameter maa_uri is documented in the schema itself; the description adds no meaning beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
"自动保全派驻" merely restates the game-mode concept behind the tool name (ss = 保全派驻) without a verb or any statement of what the tool actually does — start a task? configure one? With siblings maa_copilot and maa_paradoxcopilot present, no differentiation is offered.
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, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite information (e.g. whether the game must be running or the URI pre-existing), and no pointer to the closely named sibling tools that an agent would need to choose between.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.