Fetch Bilibili's current official all-site ranking records, with video engagement, category, creator, and rank. Use bilibili_popular for general popularity, bilibili_weekly for a selected issue, or bilibili_must_watch for editor-picked videos.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | The tool result payload (shape varies per tool; see each tool's docs resource). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and external-fetch profile is covered. The description adds that data is 'current official all-site' and lists returned fields, but says nothing about result count, pagination, refresh cadence, or rate limits. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is adequate but not rich.
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?
Two sentences: the first defines the resource and its payload, the second handles disambiguation. Front-loaded with the core purpose and zero filler.
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?
An output schema exists, so return structure need not be explained, and the description still summarizes the returned fields. Annotations cover safety. Only marginal behavioral details (pagination, freshness window) are absent, which is minor for a no-parameter ranking endpoint.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately describes what the fixed call returns rather than inventing parameter semantics, and there is no schema-level meaning left unexplained.
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 and resource ('Fetch Bilibili's current official all-site ranking records') and enumerates the data returned (engagement, category, creator, rank). The three sibling alternatives named in the second sentence make the scope unambiguous.
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?
Explicitly routes the agent to alternatives: bilibili_popular for general popularity, bilibili_weekly for a selected issue, bilibili_must_watch for editor-picked videos. Each alternative is tied to a distinguishing condition, leaving nothing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
