Collect or remove an inspiration from the current account's favorites, then re-check its status to confirm the change took effect.
收藏或取消收藏一个灵感（写入当前登录账号，与灵感详情页的收藏按钮相同），之后重新查询收藏状态确认生效。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| collect | No | true 收藏（默认），false 取消收藏。 | |
| instance_id | No | 官方 list_instances 返回的 instance_id，与 project_path 二选一。 | |
| project_path | No | 目标工程的绝对路径。与 instance_id 二选一；只开了一个工程窗口时都可省略。 | |
| inspiration_id | Yes | 要收藏的 inspiration_id。 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it usefully discloses that the write targets the current logged-in account and mirrors the UI button, which is real behavioral context. However, it is ambiguous whether the tool itself re-queries to confirm or the agent is being instructed to do so, and it says nothing about idempotency, permission requirements, or what a failed confirmation means.
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?
A single compact sentence with the action and the account scope front-loaded and no wasted wording. The trailing verification clause is slightly ambiguous rather than verbose, keeping it below a 5.
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?
For an annotation-free mutation with four parameters and no output schema, the description covers what changes and in whose account, which is the essential part. It still leaves the post-action verification semantics and failure behavior unclear, so an agent cannot fully predict the call outcome.
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 collect's default true/false semantics, the instance_id vs project_path either-or, and inspiration_id are already fully documented. The description adds only the high-level collect/uncollect framing, which is a baseline-3 contribution.
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 concrete verb pair (favorite / unfavorite) applied to a specific resource (an inspiration), and clarifies it writes to the currently logged-in account, the same as the favorite button on the inspiration detail page. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as inspiration_detail or inspiration_bind.
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?
Usage context is only implied: the equivalent-to-UI-button framing tells the agent this is the favorite action, and the trailing clause suggests verifying afterward. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative for reading favorite state (e.g., inspiration_detail).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.