Creates a RabbitMQ exchange by name with configurable type (direct, topic, headers, fanout), vhost, and durable flag to route messages.
创建交换机
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | 交换机名称 | |
| type | No | 交换机类型 (direct, topic, headers, fanout) | direct |
| vhost | No | 虚拟主机名称 (默认: /) | / |
| durable | No | 是否持久化 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it says nothing about idempotency, what happens if the exchange name already exists, permission/auth requirements, or error behavior. For a mutating create tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a serious gap.
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?
Only five characters long – not wasteful, but underspecified rather than concise. There is no front-loaded useful information because there is essentially no information.
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?
A four-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema needs the description to explain conflict handling, durability implications, and vhost resolution. None of that is present, leaving the definition inadequate for correct invocation.
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 schema already documents name, type, vhost, and durable. The description contributes nothing beyond that, but per the rubric a high-coverage schema sets the baseline at 3.
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 '创建交换机' is a literal restatement of the tool name create_exchange, which the rubric classifies as tautology. It names a verb+resource but adds no scope, target system, or sibling differentiation beyond the name itself.
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 create an exchange versus using create_queue, create_binding, or binding an existing exchange. No prerequisites, ordering, or context is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.