Skip to content

fix: MCP工具命名/描述不足以引导正确调用#622

Open
binggg wants to merge 1 commit intomainfrom
automation/attribution-issue-mo8yyyaa-5bvzp9-mcp
Open

fix: MCP工具命名/描述不足以引导正确调用#622
binggg wants to merge 1 commit intomainfrom
automation/attribution-issue-mo8yyyaa-5bvzp9-mcp

Conversation

@binggg
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@binggg binggg commented Apr 28, 2026

Attribution issue

  • issueId: issue_mo8yyyaa_5bvzp9
  • category: tool
  • canonicalTitle: MCP工具命名/描述不足以引导正确调用
  • representativeRun: atomic-js-cloudbase-list-functions/2026-04-21T18-40-28-ad7ixi

Automation summary

  • root_cause: The MCP tool queryFunctions and manageFunctions had action descriptions that only gave examples (e.g., "只读操作类型,例如 listFunctions、getFunctionDetail、listFunctionLogs") without explicitly mapping actions to their purposes. This made it unclear to the model that to list functions, it should call queryFunctions with action="listFunctions". The model returned a 400 error without making any tool call because it couldn't determine the correct way to invoke the tool.
  • changes: Updated queryFunctions and manageFunctions tool descriptions to explicitly state how to use them, following the pattern used by auth and envQuery tools:
  • queryFunctions: Added explicit description "要获取所有云函数列表,请使用 action="listFunctions"" and updated action description to use action=purpose format: "listFunctions=获取云函数列表,getFunctionDetail=获取函数详情..."
  • manageFunctions: Updated action description to use action=purpose format: "createFunction=创建云函数,updateFunctionCode=更新函数代码..."
  • queryAgents and manageAgents: Applied the same pattern for consistency
  • validation: All tests passed (325 passed, 17 skipped), including the three regression tests (build-skills-repo.test.js, build-com

Changed files

  • doc/prompts/auth-web.mdx
  • mcp/src/tools/agents.ts
  • mcp/src/tools/functions.ts

@binggg
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

binggg commented Apr 28, 2026

Attribution post-PR evaluation

  • visibility: internal identifiers, run ids, and private links are intentionally omitted
  • attempt: 1
  • eval_scope: primary_only
  • overall: FAILED
  • summary: at least one planned evaluation case failed
  • updated_at: 2026-04-28T15:46:58.631Z

Cases

  • [FAILED] — primary — evaluation failed

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant