customer_service_issue_summarySummarize customer service issues by category, open counts, first response, resolution time, and CSAT to pinpoint support gaps and enhance customer satisfaction.
汇总客服问题类别、未关闭数量、首次响应、解决时长和 CSAT。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| report_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows it is a safe read operation. The description adds the aggregation scope (categories, counts, times, CSAT), which is useful context, but it does not disclose output format, pagination, or any caveats such as date ranges or report_id interpretation.
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, tight sentence that front-loads the core action and lists the key output fields without filler. Every word contributes to the tool's meaning.
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?
Despite low complexity and supportive annotations, the description omits the meaning of report_id, provides no output details, and gives no usage context. An agent would struggle to invoke this tool correctly when preparing the required input.
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?
The sole parameter report_id has no schema description (0% coverage), and the tool description does not mention report_id at all. With no compensating explanation anywhere, the agent cannot determine what value to supply for this required parameter.
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 a specific action ('汇总' = summarize) applied to a distinct resource (customer service issues) and lists the exact metrics included (categories, unresolved count, first response, resolution duration, CSAT). This is distinguishable from siblings like report_import or report_list, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and summary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.