Invokes an official legal research tool by its real name and schema discovered through the list tool, passing arguments to search laws and cases. Credentials stay in the environment config.
按pkulaw_list_upstream_tools返回的真实name/schema调用官方工具。arguments不可放入凭据；凭据仅由实例环境配置。本工具不是18个原生工具的schema直通。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| arguments | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it usefully discloses that credentials must not be passed in arguments and are supplied by the instance environment (auth context). It says nothing about side effects, error behavior, or whether the invoked tool may mutate state, which matters for an arbitrary dispatcher.
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?
Three compact sentences with the dispatch rule front-loaded and the credential constraint immediately after. The closing 'not a schema pass-through' sentence is short but its referent (18 native tools) is unexplained, slightly reducing 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 and no annotations, so the description should say more about what happens on success/failure and that the target tool's own semantics apply. The credential and sourcing rules are covered, but behavioral coverage is partial for a generic proxy.
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 coverage is 0% and the schema only declares a bare string and object, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'name' must be the real name returned by the list tool and that 'arguments' are the payload for that tool and must exclude credentials, adding real meaning beyond the 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?
States a specific action (invoke an official upstream tool) and ties it to the name/schema returned by the sibling list tool, which separates it from pkulaw_list_upstream_tools. The final sentence about '18 native tools' is somewhat obscure, but the core verb+resource is unambiguous.
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?
Explicitly directs the agent to obtain the real name and schema from pkulaw_list_upstream_tools before calling, which is a concrete prerequisite and an implicit ordering versus the sibling. No explicit when-not guidance, but the workflow is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.