查询统一分类后的当前问题摘要。历史事件用event_get
查询统一分类后的当前问题摘要。历史事件用event_get
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| view | No | 查询视图：current当前仍在触发分组、actionable当前需处理、handled_active已处置但仍触发 | current |
| hostids | No | 主机ID（不支持主机名，需先查host_get） | |
| group_by | No | 明细分组方式：severity或host | severity |
| time_range | No | 可选时间范围；不传时查询全部原始当前问题，传入7d/24h等时只筛选开始时间 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Input schema / properties / view / descriptionPrevious value: -"查询视图：current当前仍在触发分组、actionable当前需处理、handled_active已处置但仍触发、indeterminate不可判定"New value: +"查询视图：current当前仍在触发分组、actionable当前需处理、handled_active已处置但仍触发"v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure; it implies a read-only summary query and clarifies that only currently-firing problems are returned, which is useful. It says nothing about permissions, result size, or aggregation behavior ('统一分类' is never defined), leaving real gaps for an unannotated tool.
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?
Two short sentences with zero padding; the purpose leads and the alternative follows. Nothing is wasted.
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?
With an output schema present and all four parameters documented in the schema, the description only needs to establish scope and the sibling boundary, which it does. Definition of '统一分类' and the difference between the three views are the only residual gaps.
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%, with the view enum values and the time_range caveat (filters start time only) fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, 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?
States a specific verb (查询) and resource (当前问题摘要) plus a scoping qualifier (统一分类后), which is enough for an agent to know this returns the current, de-duplicated problem set. It separates itself from event_get only via the 'historical' hint, but the core purpose is unambiguous.
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 routes historical-event lookups to event_get, giving a concrete alternative and the condition that selects it. It does not explain when to prefer one 'view' mode over another, but the main use/use-else split is stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.