push_err_msg
Push error messages to the SiYuan interface, with an optional display timeout in milliseconds.
Instructions
向思源界面推送错误消息
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| msg | Yes | 消息 | |
| timeout | No | 显示毫秒数 |
Push error messages to the SiYuan interface, with an optional display timeout in milliseconds.
向思源界面推送错误消息
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| msg | Yes | 消息 | |
| timeout | No | 显示毫秒数 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No behavioral traits disclosed beyond annotations (all false). Description does not state side effects, error handling, or display behavior.
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?
Single sentence is efficient, but could benefit from slight expansion for clarity. No waste.
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?
For a simple push tool with no output schema, description covers basic purpose but lacks details on behavior (e.g., whether errors stack, timeout effect).
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 specifies the action ('push') and resource ('error message to SiYuan interface'), clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like push_msg which likely handles normal messages.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., push_msg), no prerequisites or exclusions provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/xgq18237/siyuan_mcp_server'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server