Skip to main content
Glama
weileyao2005

cnki-deepsearch

by weileyao2005
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

cnki_co_open

Opens a persistent, visible browser window with automatic institutional login, enabling collaborative access to CNKI academic resources and interactive search sessions.

Instructions

打开协作浏览器窗口（可见、自动机构登录、常驻不关）。这是协作模式的起点：调用后浏览器窗口会在用户屏幕上出现，用户可以自由搜索/点击；AI 通过 cnki_co_read/cnki_co_click 等工具读取和操作同一个窗口。

【协作模式协议，必读】

  1. 回合制：AI 只在被调用时看/操作浏览器，回合之间窗口完全归用户。

  2. AI 动手操作前，先口头告知用户（例如"我准备点开第3篇"）。

  3. 标签页序号从左到右，从 0 开始（cnki_co_tabs 会返回标题确认）。

  4. 如果窗口已打开，重复调用只是返回当前状态，不会打断用户。

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.1

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses that the window is visible, auto-login, persistent, and that repeated calls do not interrupt the user. It fully explains side effects and non-destructive behavior, even without annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is slightly verbose due to the protocol list, but each part is relevant and concise. The front-loaded main purpose is clear.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and its role in the collaboration workflow. Nothing essential is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

No parameters are declared, so no parameter explanation is needed. The empty schema makes parameter semantics trivially complete, warranting the baseline score.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool opens a collaborative browser window (visible, auto-login, persistent) and identifies it as the starting point for collaboration mode. It distinguishes from sibling tools like cnki_co_close and cnki_co_switch.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It implies this tool should be used first in collaboration mode and includes protocol rules for interaction, but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or specify when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools