register_eventAdds a narrative event to the game narrative engine, tracking dependencies, reveals, and weight to validate story consistency and drive dynamic play.
注册叙事事件
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| text | No | ||
| depth | No | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| weight | No | ||
| assumes | No | ||
| reveals | No | ||
| pool_tags | No | ||
| project_id | No | ||
| exclusion_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 of behavioral disclosure, and it supplies none. It does not say whether this mutates state, what is created, whether the operation is idempotent, what permissions are needed, or what happens on duplicate ids.
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?
Five characters is not conciseness but under-specification; the text is too short to be front-loaded with anything. There is no waste, but also no content to earn its place.
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 10-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage needs the description to do nearly all the explanatory work. It does none of it, leaving the agent unable to construct a valid or meaningful call.
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?
Ten parameters with 0% schema description coverage and zero parameter information in the description. Required id/title versus optional text, depth, weight, assumes, reveals, pool_tags, project_id, and exclusion_group are all completely undocumented in every source.
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 '注册叙事事件' merely restates the tool name and title ('Register Event') with the domain noun 'narrative' added. It conveys no distinguishing detail against the many sibling register_* tools (register_beat, register_scene, register_thread, register_fact). An agent cannot tell when a 'narrative event' differs from a beat, scene, or fact.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative. With ~60 siblings including update_event, register_beat, and link_event_to_scene, the absence of routing guidance is a serious gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.