Invoke a discovered capability by passing its capability ID and the caller agent ID. The call runs through SkillScan interception and human-in-the-loop confirmation before execution.
能力调用——发现能力后挂载调用（SkillScan 拦截 + HITL 确认）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | No | 调用入参（透传给被调能力） | |
| capability_id | Yes | 能力 ID（必填——先 commons_search 发现） | |
| caller_agent_id | Yes | 调用者 agentId（必填） |
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 behavioral burden. It discloses two non-obvious behaviors: SkillScan interception and HITL confirmation, which adds meaningful context beyond the schema. However, it does not explain what these entail, such as whether the call blocks, who must approve, or what happens if confirmation is declined.
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, tight sentence with the core action front-loaded and behavioral flags in parentheses. There is no filler or repetition, though it could be slightly more structured for readability.
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?
There is no output schema or annotations, and the description omits the expected return shape, execution model (synchronous vs job-based), and the operational impact of SkillScan/HITL. For an invocation tool that may be intercepted and require human confirmation, these are material gaps that an agent needs to call it correctly.
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 structured data already documents all three parameters. The description adds only that input is passed through ('透传给被调能力') and that capability_id must be discovered first; it does not clarify the expected shape of input or how caller_agent_id is used. This is adequate but not compensatory.
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 identifies a specific action ('调用' invoke) and resource ('能力' capability), and situates it in a lifecycle step ('发现能力后' after discovery). It is distinguishable from siblings like commons_search and commons_rate, though it does not explicitly name 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?
The description explicitly states the precondition to invoke only after discovering the capability, reinforced by the capability_id parameter doc '先 commons_search 发现'. It does not enumerate exclusions vs alternatives like commons_rate or commons_retire, but the lifecycle cue is clear enough for an agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.