Validates a campaign module's dependency graph, identifying unreachable scenes, clues without sources, and dangling links. Returns counts and issues for correction.
确定性校验某战役模组依赖图：孤立场景(unreachable_scene)/无来源线索(clue_without_source)/ 悬空链接(dangling_link)。返回 {campaign, counts, issues}。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| campaign | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses deterministic behavior ('确定性') and the return structure, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens on invalid input, or any side effects. It adds some behavioral context beyond a bare statement of purpose but leaves notable gaps.
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, tightly packed sentence that leads with the action, enumerates the checkable issues, and states the return shape. There is zero redundant wording; every clause earns its place.
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 a single-parameter tool with no nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the parameter's role, the specific validation checks, and the return structure. It is largely complete for an agent to call correctly, though it omits potential edge-case behavior or required preconditions like the campaign existing.
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?
The schema provides only a 'campaign' string with no description (0% coverage). The description clarifies that 'campaign' refers to the campaign module whose dependency graph is to be validated, and that it is echoed in the return. This adds meaningful semantic context beyond the raw schema, though it does not specify the expected format or identifier scheme.
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 specific verb 'validate', a specific resource 'campaign module dependency graph', and enumerates the three issue types checked. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the only validation tool, and clearly states its purpose without ambiguity.
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 gives no guidance on when to invoke this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions that would make it inappropriate. It simply states what it does; there is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.