Publish a new offline social activity as an organizer by submitting title, type, date, time, and location details to CUQU.
主理人发布新活动（写操作，经托管网关提交，需 CUQU_API_KEY）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | Yes | ||
| time | Yes | ||
| price | No | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| location | Yes | ||
| description | No | ||
| activity_type | Yes | ||
| max_participants | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two meaningful traits: this is a write operation and it requires a CUQU_API_KEY via a managed gateway (an auth requirement). However, it says nothing about side effects, validation failures, duplicate handling, or what the submission returns.
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?
A single compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with operational caveats in parentheses. Efficient, though the parentheses pack multiple concerns together.
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?
A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and eight undocumented parameters at 0% coverage needs substantially more: field semantics, required-vs-optional guidance, and result behavior. The current description leaves most of what an agent needs unaddressed.
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?
Eight parameters (five required) with 0% schema description coverage, yet the description mentions no parameter at all — not even which fields are mandatory. It does not compensate for the coverage gap in any way.
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 and resource ('主理人发布新活动' — host publishes a new activity), which is clearly distinguishable from sibling reads like query_activities and get_activity_card. It does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling tool, 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The parenthetical '写操作' implies this is the mutation counterpart to the query tools, but the agent must infer that relationship rather than being told to prefer this tool over register_event or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.