Configure x-reactions responder rules for ELN template elements by specifying a path and reaction settings. Enables dynamic behavior in template design.
设置 x-reactions 响应器规则。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| reactions | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavior. It merely states the action without disclosing side effects, required permissions, mutability, or what happens to existing reactions. Nothing beyond the literal action is conveyed, which is insufficient for a tool that likely modifies state.
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?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, which is concise. However, it lacks structure and is too brief to be helpful. It's not a tautology like 'Process', but it provides only the barest information. The front-loading is minimal since there's nothing more to front-load.
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?
Given the tool has two parameters (one a nested object), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is drastically incomplete. An agent cannot know what 'path' expects, what shape 'reactions' should take, or what the response will be. This is severely under-specified for a tool with this complexity.
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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters, but it provides no information about 'path' or 'reactions'. It doesn't clarify what path refers to (e.g., a component path) or the structure/format of the reactions object. The schema itself only gives types and nesting, so the description adds no semantic value.
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 'Set x-reactions responder rules' clearly states a specific action (set) and a specific resource (x-reactions responder rules). This distinguishes it from sibling remove_reactions, which is a different operation. However, the meaning of 'x-reactions' and the exact scope of 'responder rules' is not elaborated, so it's clear but not fully self-contained.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no context about typical scenarios. The sibling list includes many set_* tools, but no differentiation or exclusions are mentioned. An agent would have to infer usage from other sources.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.