Conversational Experience Router

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Discover experiences

discover_experiences

Recommend experience modules based on the user's current intent; hosts must obtain consent before starting an authorized activity.

Instructions

根据用户当前明确表达的意图，推荐可立即开始的体验模块。宿主应先准备授权并获得用户同意，再启动体验。

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "intent": "<intent>"
    },
    "name": "discover_experiences"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`intent`	Yes	用户当前表达的需求或心情
`max_results`	No
`known_interests`	No	用户已经明确同意传给插件的兴趣线索

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.0Oct 17, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the host must prepare authorization and obtain user consent before launching, which is real behavioral context. However it never states that this tool itself only recommends (read-only) and does not itself launch or mutate, nor does it disclose rate limits or return characteristics.

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?

Two short sentences, purpose front-loaded ahead of the consent/host caveat. Efficient with no filler, though the second sentence mixes an operational precondition with the tool's own behavior.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a 3-parameter, no-output-schema recommendation tool this is minimally adequate: purpose and the consent prerequisite are covered. It leaves gaps around what is returned and how results relate to the downstream launch tools, which an agent would need for sequencing.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 67% — intent and known_interests are documented in the schema, while max_results relies only on default/range constraints. The description adds no syntax, format, or meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb (推荐/recommend) and resource (体验模块/experience modules), plus the scoping condition that they be immediately startable and grounded in the user's explicit intent. It is distinguishable from siblings like launch_experience or prepare_experience_launch, though it does not name them directly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The phrase '用户当前明确表达的意图' implies the trigger condition (user has expressed an explicit intent) and the consent prerequisite is mentioned, but there is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative tool. Usage is inferable rather than spelled out.

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