Switches the active node for a specified proxy group in a local mihomo/Clash Meta core. Use it to route traffic through a chosen proxy node via AI/MCP clients.
切换某个代理组的当前选中节点
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | 要切换到的节点名(必须是该组 all 列表里的名字) | |
| group | Yes | 代理组名 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and it does not meet it. It never states persistence, whether the change is immediate, what happens if the node name is stale or the group is missing, or what a failure looks like. Only the bare mutation intent is conveyed.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, verb and target up front. It is efficient, though the terseness means information is omitted rather than compressed.
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 is simple (two fully documented required params, flat object), so a one-line description is close to sufficient. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description should have covered at least the post-switch effect and error conditions; those gaps keep it at minimum viable.
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 100%; both 'group' and 'name' are documented in the schema, including the important constraint that the name must appear in the group's 'all' list. The description adds no format, casing, or naming detail beyond what the schema already supplies, so the baseline 3 is correct.
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?
States a specific verb (切换/switch) and resource (某个代理组的当前选中节点), so the agent knows exactly what state is being modified. It does not name any sibling such as list_proxies or delay_test, so differentiation is left to inference.
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?
Usage is implied: you call this to change which node a proxy group currently uses. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. obtaining valid group and node names first) and no reference to alternatives, so an agent must infer the workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.