noyacg-mcp

每日签到

noy_checkin

Idempotent

Performs a daily check-in for +1 point and increments the consecutive-day streak, first checking today’s record to avoid duplicate sign-ins; resets at 00:00 UTC+8.

Instructions

执行每日签到（+1 积分，连续天数 +1）。会先查记录：今天已签则直接返回、不重复调用。站点按 UTC+8 的 00:00 重置；签到时间不记录具体时刻，统一写当天 0 点。

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "noy_checkin"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (idempotentHint/destructiveHint already declare safety), it discloses the idempotency mechanism, the reset boundary (UTC+8 00:00), and the timestamp normalization (recorded as 00:00 of the day, no exact time). These are non-obvious operational facts the agent cannot derive from the schema or annotations, and they do not contradict either.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the reward and effect, then the duplicate-handling rule, then the timing detail. Every sentence carries distinct operational information with no filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a zero-parameter, once-daily action this covers behavior, idempotency, and reset timing well. Since there is no output schema, it could say slightly more about what the response contains (e.g. current streak/points after signing in), but the effect sentence largely implies it.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline of 4 applies; no parameter semantics are missing.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('执行每日签到') and immediately quantifies the effect (+1 积分, 连续天数 +1), so the agent knows exactly what happens. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from noy_signin_status by noting the tool performs its own record check rather than only reading status.

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?

It makes clear this is a once-per-day action and that repeat calls are short-circuited ('今天已签则直接返回、不重复调用'), which tells the agent it need not pre-check or guard against duplicates. It stops short of explicitly naming noy_signin_status as the read-only alternative, so the routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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