Search CUQU for offline social activities by city, date, and activity type, including board games, frisbee, hiking, badminton, and other local meetups.
查询CUQU找搭子平台上的线下活动（桌游/飞盘/徒步/羽毛球/二次元/钓鱼等100+品类，覆盖深圳等10+城市，含中国香港）。数据为平台实时公开数据。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | 城市，默认 深圳 | |
| date | No | 日期 YYYY-MM-DD，筛选当天活动 | |
| activity_type | No | 活动类型关键词，如 桌游/羽毛球/飞盘 |
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 full burden. It usefully discloses that results are live, public platform data (real-time freshness, read-only nature), but omits pagination behavior, result limits, and response shape. Some behavioral value, but far from complete.
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 compact sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the domain scope following. Little waste, though the exhaustive category enumeration is more marketing than operational detail.
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?
No output schema and no annotations, so the description must carry the load. It conveys the domain and data provenance well, but leaves return format, pagination and result-size behavior undocumented for a query tool whose parameters are all optional.
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 schema already documents city, date and activity_type. The description reinforces category/city breadth (100+ 品类, 10+ 城市, 含中国香港) but adds no syntax or format rules beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (查询) and resource (线下活动) plus the platform scope, categories, cities and data source. It clearly differs from query_venues (venues) and get_activity_card, though it never names those siblings explicitly.
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 is entirely about what data exists on the platform, not about when to invoke this tool versus get_activity_card, query_venues or create_activity. No conditions, prerequisites or alternatives are given; usage is only implied by the parameters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.