Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mihomo_party

mihomo_party

by bfrontend
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

reload_config

Reload the active Clash/mihomo core configuration to apply edits; use with mihomo-party, and use switch_profile or the UI for clash-verge instead.

Instructions

让核心重载运行配置（mihomo-party 支持；clash-verge 请改用 switch_profile/UI）。

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "reload_config"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses a compatibility constraint (works on mihomo-party, not clash-verge), but says nothing about whether the reload is disruptive, whether it drops connections or invalidates proxies, or whether it requires the config file to already be valid.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the action and followed by the compatibility caveat and the pointer to a sibling. Nothing is wasted; it is terse rather than padded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-param, no-output tool this covers the essentials of what it does and where it does not apply. However, nothing is said about the effect of the reload on the running session, which is the main thing an agent needs to weigh before invoking it, and the description is written in Chinese while most sibling tooling appears English-named.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies no arguments are needed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a concrete verb ('reload') and a concrete resource ('running config' / 运行配置) on the core, which distinguishes it from read-only siblings like get_active_config and list_profiles. It does not explicitly say what a reload does to the core's state, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly gives the when-not: on clash-verge use switch_profile or the UI instead, which is a real alternative-naming guideline. It does not say when a reload is actually warranted on mihomo-party (e.g. after editing a config file), so the positive-side guidance is only implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools