isingq_modeling_guide_getGet local QUBO modeling guidance for IsingQ to structure portfolio, routing, scheduling, and graph optimization problems before cloud solving.
获取伊辛智能 IsingQ 的本地 QUBO 建模流程，适用于投资组合、路径规划、车辆路径、排程和图优化。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| problem_summary | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | 工具调用是否成功 | |
| data | No | 成功时返回的数据 | |
| error | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully carried by structured data. The description only adds that the workflow is '本地' (local) and domain-scoped; it adds no further behavioral context such as content scope or freshness.
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?
A single compact sentence with the core action front-loaded and the qualifying domains appended. No filler, though the domain list is somewhat padding given the generic nature of the 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?
The presence of an output schema means return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, the undocumented optional parameter and the absence of routing guidance against sibling tools leave the definition only minimally complete.
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% and the description says nothing about problem_summary — its purpose, format, or what happens when it is omitted (it is not required). With a low-coverage schema, the description was expected to compensate and does not.
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 names a specific verb (获取/get) and resource (IsingQ 本地 QUBO 建模流程), so an agent knows it retrieves a modeling workflow, and it lists applicable problem domains. However, it does not distinguish this from the sibling isingq_knowledge_get, leaving the boundary between 'guide' and 'knowledge' unclear.
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?
The enumerated domains (投资组合、路径规划、车辆路径、排程、图优化) imply when the guide is relevant, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no routing versus isingq_knowledge_get or isingq_qubo_validate, and no note that problem_summary is optional.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.