Runs a BetterGI one-dragon daily routine—claiming mail, synthesizing resin, claiming daily rewards, and auto domain—then returns so you can poll bgi_watch for results.
跑「一条龙」日常配置（本机配置名：日常 = 领取邮件→合成树脂→领取每日奖励→自动秘境）。要求 BetterGI 未在运行（单实例会吞掉参数）；干完就返回，成败用 bgi_watch 轮询。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| force | No | 无视前置阻断强行发起（默认 false；窗口不可用时基本白跑） | |
| config | No | 一条龙配置名，默认「日常」 | |
| dry_run | No | 只打印将执行的命令（默认 false） | |
| wait_seconds | No | 可选：等待截图器就绪的最长秒数（默认 0=立即返回，上限 50） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the key non-obvious trait—fire-and-forget execution with a prerequisite that BetterGI must be closed—and routes to bgi_watch for outcomes, which is valuable. However, it does not describe what happens on partial completion, whether it can be interrupted, or what the returned value looks like, gaps that matter for a mutation/trigger tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 dense sentences: identity+pipeline first, then constraints and follow-up. No wasted text.
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?
The description covers the trigger constraints and points at bgi_watch for results, which is what an agent needs for a no-output-schema async tool. Minor gaps remain around failure mid-run and partial completion handling.
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% and each of the four params (force, config, dry_run, wait_seconds) is fully documented in the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description mentions the default config name but adds no syntax or semantics beyond 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+resource ('跑「一条龙」日常配置') and enumerates the exact task pipeline it executes (领取邮件→合成树脂→领取每日奖励→自动秘境). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings that create or configure one-dragon setups.
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?
Explicitly states the precondition (BetterGI must not be running, since the single-instance behavior swallows args) and the post-call pattern (returns when done, poll success/failure with bgi_watch). Names the alternative sibling for result checking.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.