register_branch_nodeRegisters a branch node in a game narrative graph to define plot branches, enabling consistency checks and dynamic story execution.
注册分支图节点
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| depth | No | ||
| exits | No | ||
| label | Yes | ||
| event_id | No | ||
| project_id | No | ||
| is_terminal | No | ||
| is_convergence | No | ||
| convergence_group | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses nothing. It does not state whether the node is persisted, what happens on duplicate ids, whether the graph must exist first, or what permissions are needed. For a mutation tool with 9 parameters and zero annotation coverage, this is a complete gap.
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?
It is short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness — a single six-character phrase that earns nothing. There is no front-loaded explanation because there is no explanation at all.
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?
A 9-parameter graph-construction mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage demands substantial description, and none is given. The description is also written in Chinese while the tool name, title, and all sibling names are English, creating an avoidable language mismatch for the calling agent.
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% across 9 parameters, and the description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever. Critical fields such as exits, is_convergence, convergence_group, depth, and is_terminal are entirely unexplained, so an agent cannot know how to populate them.
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 '注册分支图节点' is a direct restatement of the tool name and title ('Register Branch Node'), adding no distinguishing detail. It conveys a verb+resource but nothing an agent couldn't infer from the name alone, and it does not separate this tool from close siblings like connect_branch, add_branch_edge, or register_event.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. With siblings such as connect_nodes, validate_branch_graph, connect_branch, and add_branch_edge, an agent has no basis for choosing this tool over them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.