zhiyan-detective

answer_follow_up

Answers the single allowed follow-up question per case after find_work, clarifying details such as character name or year to refine search results.

Instructions

回答 find_work 的追问（例如角色名或年份）；每个案子只能追问一次。

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "case_id": "<case_id>",
      "answer": "<answer>"
    },
    "name": "answer_follow_up"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`answer`	Yes
`case_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 1, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a real behavioral limit — one follow-up per case — which is genuine value beyond the schema, but it omits what happens on a second attempt (error? ignored?), whether the answer is freeform or matched against expected values, and whether find_work resumes afterward.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single compact sentence: the action and its source tool come first, followed by the constraint. The parenthetical example earns its place by illustrating answer content, and there is no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description must do more. It omits the source of case_id, the answer format, the post-answer behavior, and error conditions, leaving the agent to guess on a stateful tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and neither parameter is documented in the schema. The description hints that 'answer' holds a role name or year, but 'case_id' is never explained (presumably from find_work's response) and no format expectations are given for either parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource (answering a follow-up question raised by find_work) and names the sibling that produces the question, so an agent can tell it apart from verify_claim/verify_digest. The parenthetical examples ('role name or year') clarify what a follow-up looks like. It falls short of a 5 only because it never says what the tool returns or does after the answer is submitted.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly ties invocation to find_work having asked a follow-up, and it states an exclusion: only one follow-up per case, so a second call is not allowed. There is no explicit statement about what to do if no follow-up was raised, which keeps it below a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server