register_timeline_entryRegisters timeline and causal story entries with order, event, scene, project, and must-follow links to maintain narrative consistency.
注册时间线/因果条目
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| label | No | ||
| order | Yes | ||
| event_id | No | ||
| scene_id | No | ||
| project_id | No | ||
| must_follow | 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 whether registration is idempotent, whether it errors on duplicates, whether ordering constraints (must_follow) are validated at registration or later, or whether other graph state is mutated.
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. The single fragment conveys no actionable information and nothing is front-loaded because there is no substance to prioritize.
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?
The tool has 7 parameters, 2 required, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema. A registration tool that likely participates in graph validation (see validate_branch_graph, check_timeline) needs to explain constraints and failure modes, and none are present.
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, and the description adds nothing about any of them. Critical semantics such as the meaning and uniqueness of 'id', the unit/ordering intent of 'order', and the relationship between 'event_id', 'scene_id', and 'project_id' 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 is a tautology: '注册时间线/因果条目' restates the tool name and title ('Register Timeline Entry') without adding scope, verb nuance, or distinguishing it from the many other register_* siblings (register_beat, register_event, register_thread, register_entity). It does not clarify what a timeline/causal entry is versus those adjacent registrations.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings like register_event, register_beat, and check_timeline are obvious confusers, yet nothing indicates when a timeline entry is required or what prerequisites exist (e.g., must the event/scene already be registered?).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.