Export FairyGUI packages per project publishing configuration. Choose active, selected, or all packages, with optional save and description-only mode.
按工程发布设置导出 FairyGUI 包。默认发布当前文档所属包并先保存；可选择指定包或全部包。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scope | No | active | |
| branch | No | ||
| package_names | No | ||
| timeout_seconds | No | ||
| publish_desc_only | No | ||
| save_before_publish | No |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that it saves before publishing by default and allows selecting scope. However, it does not mention side effects, timeout implications, branch usage, or publish_desc_only behavior, which are relevant for a publish/export operation.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main purpose and covers key default behaviors and scope options. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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 having an output schema, the description is too brief for a tool with 6 parameters and no annotations. It omits semantics for several parameters (branch, timeout, publish_desc_only) and lacks details on side effects or error behavior, making it incomplete for an agent to use effectively.
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 has 0% description coverage for parameters. The description clarifies 'scope' and 'save_before_publish' implicitly, but leaves 'branch', 'timeout_seconds', and 'publish_desc_only' unexplained. With six parameters, the description only partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.
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?
Description clearly states the tool's function: '按工程发布设置导出 FairyGUI 包' (export FairyGUI packages according to project publish settings). It uses a specific verb (导出/export) and resource (FairyGUI包), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like fgui_get_publish_settings (read) and fgui_save_document (save).
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?
Description provides context on default behavior (publishes current document's package and saves first) and scope options (specific package or all packages), but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like fgui_save_document or fgui_list_packages. No when-not-to-use guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.