register_ending_axisRegisters an ending axis vector to define and track narrative outcome dimensions across runs, meta, campaigns, or slots in a game narrative engine.
注册结局向量轴
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| max | No | ||
| min | No | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| scope | Yes | ||
| default | No | ||
| project_id | 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 behavioral burden — and it discloses nothing. It does not say what an 'ending axis' is, whether registration is idempotent, what happens on ID collision, or what permissions/state it requires. For a mutation-style 'register' tool with 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?
The single short phrase wastes no words, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. A one-line restatement of the title cannot be considered appropriately structured for a 7-parameter tool.
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?
Given 7 parameters at 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain the tool's role in the ending/vector model. Instead it provides nothing an agent can act on beyond the name.
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 7 parameters (id, name, scope, min, max, default, project_id), and the description adds no meaning for any of them. Critical ambiguity — e.g. what 'scope' values ('run','meta','campaign','global','slot') imply, or how min/max/default interact — is left entirely undocumented.
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 "注册结局向量轴" is essentially a Chinese restatement of the tool name register_ending_axis — no additional verb, resource scope, or distinguishing detail. It does not differentiate this from siblings like register_ending, map_ending_space, or compare_endings. This is tautological rather than clarifying.
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 guidance on when to use this tool vs the many closely related siblings (register_ending, register_character_arc, map_ending_space, compare_endings). No prerequisites, ordering, or exclusion conditions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.