Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mihomo_party

mihomo_party

by bfrontend
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

select_proxy

Switches the active node in a specified proxy group, including DIRECT, to control how traffic is routed through Clash/mihomo.

Instructions

切换某代理组当前选中节点（如切到直连/DIRECT）。

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "group": "<group>",
      "proxy": "<proxy>"
    },
    "name": "select_proxy"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
groupYes
proxyYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It reveals that state is mutated (the current selection changes), but says nothing about whether the change persists to config, whether it triggers a reconnect, what happens with an invalid proxy name, or what is returned.

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?

A single short sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler; the DIRECT parenthetical is a compact clarifying example. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight phrasing of rich content.

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 two-parameter state-mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description leaves real gaps: failure modes, persistence, and parameter formats are all unstated. The core action is clear, but supporting detail is thin.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so both required parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description only loosely implies the two inputs (代理组 → group, 节点 → proxy) and the DIRECT example hints at naming conventions, but format, case sensitivity, and whether names or IDs are expected remain unspecified.

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?

"切换某代理组当前选中节点" states a specific verb (switch) and a specific resource (the selected node of a proxy group), with an example (DIRECT) that makes the intent concrete. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling switch_profile, which an agent could easily confuse with this operation.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The DIRECT example implies a typical use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use framing, no prerequisites (must the group already exist?), and no guidance on choosing this over switch_profile or get_active_config. Usage must be inferred.

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