Opens the Loci web panel to view memories, session transcripts, handoff cards, or the library. Call it only when the user explicitly asks to see the panel.
打开 Loci 网页面板（看记忆 / 会话原文 / 交接卡 / 库）。只在用户明确想看面板时才调用（例如用户说「打开 Loci 面板」「我想看看我的记忆」）；平时不要主动调、也不要每轮对话都调 —— 默认情况下面板不会自己弹出来
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 must carry the behavioral load. It usefully discloses that the panel does not appear automatically, but says nothing about what invoking the tool returns (e.g. a URL or a UI side effect) or any permission requirements, leaving a gap for a no-annotation tool.
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?
Front-loaded with the purpose, then the gating rule. Slightly repetitive — '只在用户明确想看面板时才调用' is restated as '平时不要主动调、也不要每轮对话都调' — but the redundancy is deliberate emphasis and remains short.
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?
For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema UI tool, the description covers purpose and invocation gating adequately. The only missing piece is what actually happens on invocation (navigation target, returned value), which a caller might reasonably want to know.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there are no parameter semantics to add meaning to, and the description correctly implies the call needs no arguments.
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?
States a specific verb+resource (打开 Loci 网页面板) and enumerates the panel's contents (记忆 / 会话原文 / 交接卡 / 库). This distinguishes it from the data-oriented siblings (memory_list, memory_search), though it does not name any sibling explicitly.
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?
Explicit when-to-use ('只在用户明确想看面板时才调用', with example utterances) and explicit when-not ('平时不要主动调、也不要每轮对话都调'). This is unusually thorough routing guidance with concrete trigger phrases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.