mcai_conceptRetrieve a complete knowledge-base entry for a known concept using its term, alias, or slug, including definition, aliases, sources, citations, and relations.
按术语名、别名或 slug 获取单个概念的完整词条：定义、别名、出处、文献引证与关系。适合在已经知道术语名、需要完整资料时使用。分工：不确定术语写法时先用 mcai_search；整句问题用 mcai_answer；只看关系用 mcai_related。边界：只返回本知识库已收录的词条，查不到时返回明确错误。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| term | Yes | 精确的术语名、别名或 slug，例如 元意识 / MCAI / meta-consciousness；不确定写法时先用 mcai_search。 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Input schema / properties / term / descriptionPrevious value: -"术语名、别名或 slug，例如 元意识 / MCAI / meta-consciousness"New value: +"精确的术语名、别名或 slug，例如 元意识 / MCAI / meta-consciousness；不确定写法时先用 mcai_search。"Input schema / properties / term / examplesAdded value: +[
+ "元意识",
+ "meta-consciousness"
+]v0.1.1Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / term / descriptionPrevious value: -"术语、别名或 slug，如 元意识 / MCAI / meta-consciousness"New value: +"术语名、别名或 slug，例如 元意识 / MCAI / meta-consciousness"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is low. The description still adds real value by declaring that it only returns entries in this knowledge base and returns an explicit error when not found, which is behavior not encoded in the annotations.
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?
Front-loads what it returns, then usage routing, then boundary. Every sentence carries distinct information with no redundancy; the '分工' (division of labor) framing is compact and high-signal.
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?
No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (definition, aliases, provenance, citations, relations). For a single-parameter read tool with annotation coverage, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.
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 coverage is 100%, including examples and the 'use mcai_search if unsure' note, so the parameter is fully documented structurally. The description restates 'term name, alias, or slug' without adding format or matching semantics (e.g., exact vs. partial match) beyond the schema. 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?
Specific verb (获取/get) plus resource (单个概念词条) with an explicit enumeration of returned content (定义、别名、出处、文献引证、关系). It cleanly distinguishes itself from the siblings without requiring the schema to be opened.
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?
Explicitly states the conditions that select this tool (已知术语名、需要完整资料) and routes to alternatives with named conditions: mcai_search for uncertain spelling, mcai_answer for sentence-level questions, mcai_related for relations only. A boundary note about unindexed terms is also provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.