Open FairyGUI component documentation by specifying package and item names to access relevant guides directly.
按包名和资源名打开 FairyGUI 组件文档。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item_name | Yes | ||
| package_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior, but it only states the action. It does not mention side effects like changing the active document, error handling when the document is not found, or whether the operation is safe or destructive.
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 short sentence that is front-loaded and free of filler. It conveys the essential purpose without unnecessary detail, making it highly concise.
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?
The tool requires project context, as seen from sibling tools like fgui_use_project, but the description does not mention prerequisites or whether the project must be active. It also does not explain possible error states, though an output schema exists. The minimal description is insufficient for a smooth agent interaction.
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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description explicitly maps the parameters to 'package name' and 'resource name', providing semantic meaning beyond the bare property titles. However, it lacks details on formats, constraints, or relationships between the parameters.
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 function: opening a FairyGUI component document by package name and resource name. It uses a specific verb '打开' (open) and identifies the resource type, distinguishing it from sibling tools like save, publish, or insert operations.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fgui_get_active_document or fgui_get_tree. It only states the action without explaining prerequisites or situations where it is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.