Search the official script repository for map farming routes by material or monster name, then optionally download matching files to your local AutoPathing folder.
在官方脚本仓库（babalae/bettergi-scripts-list）里检索地图追踪路线，例如「星螺」→ 5 条璃月路线。download=true 时下载到 User\AutoPathing。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | 仓库分区，默认 pathing | |
| download | No | 下载命中文件（默认 false） | |
| material | Yes | 材料/怪物/矿物名，例如 星螺 | |
| overwrite | No | 覆盖已存在文件（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, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the one real side effect — files are written to User\AutoPathing only when download=true — but says nothing about overwrite semantics (overwrite=true can clobber existing files), behavior when no material matches, or result ordering/limits.
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 tight sentences: purpose and repository location first, then the illustrative example, then the download side effect. No filler, and the most decision-relevant fact is front-loaded.
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 4-parameter, annotation-free, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, source repo, example result shape ('5 routes'), and the download destination. It is only slightly short on failure behavior and on how results differ from the sibling listing tools.
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 baseline is 3; the description goes slightly beyond by adding the concrete download destination path (User\AutoPathing) and a sample material value, which the schema does not state. The kind enum and overwrite flag are still left entirely to the schema.
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 and resource: search map-tracking routes in the named official repo (babalae/bettergi-scripts-list), with a concrete example ('星螺' → 5 Liyue routes). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the close sibling bgi_list_pathing or bgi_repo_index, leaving the agent to infer the difference between searching the remote repo vs. listing local content.
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?
Implies a search-then-optionally-download workflow ('download=true 时下载到 User\AutoPathing'), which is useful context. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs. bgi_list_pathing / bgi_install_js guidance and no stated preconditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.