SiteCheck Shop & Social

Hot comments on one Bilibili video from Bilibili's public

social_bilibili_comments

Read-only

Hot comments on one Bilibili video from Bilibili's public comment endpoint: comment id, author name, text, like count, reply count and time (up to 20, most-liked first). Needs the video's numeric aid (the number in the av URL); the tool does not convert BV ids. Related tools on this server, for a different need: social_tiktok_comments when you need Top-level comments of a public TikTok video from TikTok's; social_facebook_comments when you need comments on a public Facebook post as a logged-out visitor. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

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": {
      "aid": "<aid>"
    },
    "name": "social_bilibili_comments"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`aid`	Yes	Bilibili video aid (digits, e.g. 170001 from av170001)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond readOnlyHint/openWorldHint it discloses result ordering ('most-liked first'), a hard cap (up to 20), the exact returned fields, the input constraint that BV ids are not converted, and the charging model ($0.002 USDC per successful call via x402, failed calls uncharged). That payment and failure-charging detail is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The core is front-loaded and dense with useful facts, but the sibling sentence is boilerplate-templated and garbled ('Top-level comments of a public TikTok video from TikTok's' — sentence cut off mid-phrase), which costs clarity. The pricing sentence, while useful, is verbose relative to the single parameter being described.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with an output schema, everything an agent needs is present: accepted id format, result ordering and cap, cost and failure-charging behavior, and platform alternatives. No material gap remains.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already documents aid with the av170001 example, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning: the aid is the number inside an av<aid> URL and BV ids are not accepted, which prevents a common wrong-argument call.

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?

Names a specific resource and scope ('Hot comments on one Bilibili video from Bilibili's public comment endpoint') and enumerates the returned fields (comment id, author name, text, like count, reply count, time). An agent can immediately distinguish this from the TikTok and Facebook comment tools named in the same paragraph.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent away to social_tiktok_comments and social_facebook_comments when the target platform differs, and states the 'different need' framing. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use for Bilibili itself (e.g. non-video content or BV-only inputs are only implied by 'the tool does not convert BV ids').

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

All SiteCheck Shop & Social tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?