Collects Genshin Impact materials by fetching official routes, creating a config group, and optionally running the collection automatically.
一键采集材料（旗舰工具）：在官方仓库找到该材料的路线 → 缺则下载到 User\AutoPathing → 生成配置组「采集-<材料>」→（run=true 时）立即触发执行。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run | No | 下载/建组后立即触发（默认 false，先给用户确认） | |
| material | Yes | 材料名，例如 星螺 | |
| overwrite | No | 重新下载已存在的文件（默认 false） | |
| include_related | No | 同时纳入"顺路采集"的相邻路线（默认 false） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the discrete side effects (filesystem write to User\AutoPathing, group creation named 采集-<材料>, and conditional task execution). It stops short of covering failure behavior when a material has no route, permission/auth needs, or whether an existing group is overwritten.
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 arrow-chained sentence that front-loads the tool's identity and then walks the pipeline in execution order. Every clause maps to a distinct step; nothing is redundant.
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?
For a composite, side-effecting tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives enough of the pipeline for an agent to call it correctly. Gaps remain around return values (does it report the group name or route path?) and error paths when no route exists, but the core behavior is covered.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters including defaults and examples (星螺). The description only restates the run=true behavior ('立即触发执行'), which the schema parameter description already conveys, so it adds little beyond the structured fields.
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 names a specific verb+resource (采集材料) and enumerates the internal workflow steps: repo route lookup, conditional download to User\AutoPathing, config group creation, and optional execution. The 'flagship tool' label signals it is the composite entry point, but no sibling tool is named outright (e.g. vs bgi_collect_now or bgi_create_group), so differentiation is left to inference.
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?
Usage context is implied via '一键' and the run=true branch, and the schema note '先给用户确认' hints at a confirm-before-execute workflow. However, the description never states when to prefer this over sibling tools like bgi_collect_now, bgi_find_routes, or bgi_create_group, nor any preconditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.