get_combo_paramsFetch the parameter baseline for a generation combo, showing askable params, read-only derived values, and selection details. Use it to inspect combo inputs before single- or multi-end generation.
多端参数基线（经桥 show-combo）：params（可问）/ internal（勿传）/ derived（只读）/ selection。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| combo | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 almost nothing about the operation itself. The notes that internal params are 勿传 (do not pass) and derived are 只读 (read-only) are useful field-level hints, but there is no statement about permissions, side effects, or return shape.
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 very short and front-loaded, but the telegraphic style with slashes and parentheticals makes it cryptic rather than efficient. Brevity here comes at the cost of clarity.
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?
No output schema, no annotations, and an undocumented input parameter. For a getter whose entire value is interpreting combo parameter groupings, the description leaves the input semantics and the practical result unexplained.
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?
With 1 required parameter at 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain what "combo" is, and it does not. It does partially compensate by classifying the returned parameter groups (params/internal/derived/selection), which adds meaning beyond the bare schema.
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 noun phrase ("多端参数基线" – multi-client parameter baseline) rather than a stated verb+resource, so it never explicitly says it retrieves combo parameter definitions. It hints at the resource but does not distinguish itself from the sibling get_template_params.
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 indication of when to use this tool versus get_template_params, list_combos, or generate_*. The only guidance (勿传 for internal) concerns the returned field categories, not when to invoke the tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.