Execute documented D1Jiema API operations by code with optional parameters. Write-like requests require confirm=true to authorize changes.
Call any documented D1Jiema GET operation by code. Write-like codes require confirm=true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | ||
| params | No | ||
| confirm | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that write-like codes require confirm=true, which is a meaningful safety gate. But it does not explain what 'write-like' means, what confirm does, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior for a tool that can invoke any documented operation.
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 sentences with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the safety condition follows immediately. The description is appropriately sized for the amount of information it conveys.
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?
Although an output schema exists and need not be described, the description is incomplete for a generic dispatcher with no annotations and 0% schema coverage. It omits where operation codes come from, what the params object should contain, and what 'documented' means, leaving significant gaps for correct invocation.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives some meaning for 'code' ('operation by code') and 'confirm' ('write-like codes require confirm=true'), but the 'params' object is completely unexplained, leaving one of three parameters with no semantic guidance.
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 clear verb and resource: 'Call any documented D1Jiema GET operation by code.' It specifies the mechanism (by code) and that it is a generic dispatcher. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the many specific D1Jiema sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer when the generic wrapper is preferable.
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 only usage guidance is 'Write-like codes require confirm=true,' which is a parameter condition, not a when-to-use statement. There is no mention of when to prefer this generic tool over specific siblings like d1jiema_get_sms or d1jiema_balance, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.