Adjust the retrieval weight for a registered knowledge base, multiplying chunk scores during cross-vault searches. A higher weight makes that vault more influential in retrieval results.
设置知识库的检索权重：跨库检索时该库所有 chunk 的分数会乘以该系数，用于表达"这个库更重要"（默认 1.0，取值 0 < w <= 100）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| weight | Yes | 必填，权重系数，取值 0 < weight <= 100；1.0 为默认不放大 | |
| vault_path | Yes | 必填，已注册知识库的绝对路径 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does it well: it explains the operational effect (score multiplication across chunks), the default value, and the allowed range. It does not discuss persistence, permissions, or reindexing requirements, but the core behavior is transparent.
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 sentence that front-loads the action, then gives the effect, default, and range with no wasted words. It is compact and easy to parse.
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 simple two-parameter setter with no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It covers the mechanism, default, and value range; the only omitted details are persistence/return confirmation, which are low-risk for this tool.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the conceptual intent ('this vault is more important') but does not materially expand on what the parameter descriptions already provide.
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 states a precise verb+resource: setting the retrieval weight of a knowledge base. It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling tools by focusing on weight configuration rather than import, export, search, stats, or registration operations.
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 description provides concrete context: the weight takes effect during cross-vault retrieval by scaling all chunk scores. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use is clear given the sibling tool set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.