Execute any operation from a BMAHS device's action list by passing the device ID and action name with its required arguments. Use for custom or new device operations without dedicated tools.
对 BMAHS 设备执行任意其操作清单内（operations）的动作，参数按该动作的 args 传。适合调用尚未生成独立工具的动作，或临时查看新设备。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| args | No | 动作参数（按该设备 operations 中该动作 args 的字段名与类型） | |
| action | Yes | 动作名，必须在设备 operations 清单中 | |
| device | Yes | 设备 id 或显示名 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full safety burden. It discloses that any operation can be invoked, but does not warn about possible side effects, mutation, device-state requirements, or the need to call bmahs_describe/bmahs_occupy before executing. For a generic arbitrary-action tool this is a significant transparency gap.
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 concise sentences: the first front-loads the core behavior, the second clarifies the intended use cases. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.
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?
The description provides the essential call pattern and use cases for a generic dispatcher, but it does not explain how to discover the operations list, what the response looks like, or whether actions can mutate device state. With no output schema and no annotations, these are meaningful 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%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds the useful idea that args must match the selected action's definition, but the schema property descriptions already state this; the description adds little beyond that.
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 action: execute any operation in the device's operations list, and explicitly positions it as the fallback for operations that do not have a dedicated tool. This clearly distinguishes it from specialized siblings like bmahs_screenshot or bmahs_describe.
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?
It gives concrete when-to-use guidance: for actions without a standalone tool or for temporarily inspecting a new device. The '尚未生成独立工具' condition implies preference for dedicated tools when available, though it does not name specific alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.