register_poolCreate a named event pool by grouping event IDs under optional tags to enable game narrative systems to track, validate, and trigger related story events.
注册事件池
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| tags | No | ||
| event_ids | Yes | ||
| min_events | 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 burden, yet it discloses nothing about mutation semantics, persistence, side effects, or validation behavior. An agent cannot tell what this operation actually does beyond its name.
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 text is short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness — a four-character phrase that omits everything an agent needs. Nothing is front-loaded because nothing is provided.
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 six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation has effectively no specification. The description is completely inadequate for the tool's complexity.
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?
Six parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description mentions none of them. The meanings of id, name, event_ids, min_events, project_id, and tags are 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 '注册事件池' merely restates the tool name register_pool in Chinese, giving no information an agent couldn't derive from the identifier itself. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like check_pool_health 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 indication of when to register a pool, what prerequisites exist, or how it relates to sibling tools such as check_pool_health or register_event. No guidance at all.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.