Replace the entire Formily Schema in one action by providing a complete JSON object with form and schema fields, overwriting all prior modifications for a clean template setup.
直接设置完整的 Formily Schema JSON。适用于从已有模板复制 Schema 或 AI 一次性生成完整表单结构。会覆盖之前所有细粒度操作。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| schema | Yes | 完整的 Formily Schema 对象，包含 form 和 schema 两个字段 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key destructive behavior: it overwrites all previous fine-grained operations. However, it doesn't mention other potential effects, such as whether it validates the schema, resets form settings, or is reversible. The overwrite warning is valuable, but a bit more detail on side effects would raise the score.
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?
Two concise sentences in Chinese: the main action, then usage, then the critical side effect. No filler. The most important information (overwrite) is placed at the end but still impactful. Ideal compactness.
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 bulk setter without an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and the key behavioral consequence. It doesn't mention validation or whether existing form settings (e.g., form settings via set_form_settings) are affected, but given the tool's simplicity and the overwrite warning, it's fairly complete. Slight gap on additional side effects prevents a 5.
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% — the parameter is fully described as a complete Formily Schema object containing form and schema fields. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already says, so it doesn't need to compensate. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool sets the complete Formily Schema JSON, which is a specific verb+resource. It differentiates from fine-grained operations by noting it overwrites them, though without naming specific sibling tools. This is sufficient to distinguish it from the many fine-grained tools in the sibling list.
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?
It explicitly states appropriate use cases: copying schema from templates or AI generating the full form structure in one go. It implies it is not for incremental edits by warning that it overwrites previous fine-grained operations, giving a clear sense of when to select this over tools like set_property or add_component. It doesn't explicitly enumerate alternatives, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.