Skip to main content
Glama
iEfoam

CocosMCP

by iEfoam
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

规划工作流

cocos_workflow_plan
Read-only

Validate capability parameters, versions, risks, and side effects for Cocos Creator workflow plans, then execute the planned steps without modifying the project.

Instructions

批量校验能力参数、版本、风险和副作用；规划不会修改工程

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
stepsYes
projectIdYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv0.1.0-build.8.073d0f2
    • addedInput schema / $defs
      Added value: +{
+  "__schema0": {
+    "anyOf": [
+      {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      {
+        "type": "number"
+      },
+      {
+        "type": "boolean"
+      },
+      {
+        "type": "null"
+      },
+      {
+        "items": {
+          "$ref": "#/$defs/__schema0"
+        },
+        "type": "array"
+      },
+      {
+        "additionalProperties": {
+          "$ref": "#/$defs/__schema0"
+        },
+        "propertyNames": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      }
+    ]
+  }
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / steps / items / properties / paramRefs
      Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": {
+    "properties": {
+      "path": {
+        "minLength": 1,
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "step": {
+        "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+        "minimum": 0,
+        "type": "integer"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "step",
+      "path"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "propertyNames": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / steps / items / properties / runtimeRef
      Added value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "path": {
+      "minLength": 1,
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "step": {
+      "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+      "minimum": 0,
+      "type": "integer"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "step",
+    "path"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / steps / items / properties / waitFor
      Added value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "equals": {
+      "$ref": "#/$defs/__schema0"
+    },
+    "intervalMs": {
+      "maximum": 5000,
+      "minimum": 10,
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "path": {
+      "minLength": 1,
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "timeoutMs": {
+      "maximum": 30000,
+      "minimum": 1,
+      "type": "integer"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "path",
+    "equals"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds that it validates parameters, versions, risks, and side effects, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose return format, error handling, or how the validation results are presented.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, well-structured Chinese sentence. It front-loads the primary action (batch validate) and then adds the key clarification (non-modifying). No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has a complex schema with a required array of step objects containing many nested fields, and there is no output schema. The description provides no details about step structure, field meanings, constraints, or what the tool returns. This is critically incomplete for an agent to use the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description provides no parameter explanations. It does not clarify what projectId and steps mean, nor the semantics of nested fields like waitFor, paramRefs, runtimeRef, expectedRevision, etc. The agent must rely solely on names, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool validates capability parameters, versions, risks, and side effects, and explicitly notes it does not modify the project. This distinguishes it from execution tools like cocos_workflow_execute and aligns with the title 'plan workflow'. The action and resource are specific and unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for planning/validation before execution by stating 'planning will not modify the project'. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or conditions for when not to use it. The context is clear but lacks explicit routing to siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools