Skip to main content
Glama
deenesjakoruzh
wangshunnn

bilibili MCP Server

by wangshunnn
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

bilibili MCP Server

MIT licensed NPM version NPM Unpacked Size (with version)

English | 简体中文

Model Context Protocol (MCP) Server for the bilibili.com API.

Features

User Info

  • Get user information by mid

  • Search video information by bvid

  • Search videos by keywords

Related MCP server: MCP Feishu Project Manager

Usage

Claude Desktop

Refer to the official documentation

config for npm (recommended)

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "bilibili": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "@wangshunnn/bilibili-mcp-server"]
    }
  }
}

or

config for local cloned repo

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "bilibili": {
      "command": "node",
      "args": [
        "/ABSOLUTE/PATH/TO/PARENT/FOLDER/bilibili-mcp-server/dist/index.js"
      ]
    }
  }
}

Save the configuration and restart. You will see the new bilibili MCP option as shown below:

Demo Vedio

https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/813dece6-c9b5-4bc5-96c1-c3b4d284cc76

Local Development

  1. Install dependencies

pnpm i

  1. build

pnpm build
# or
pnpm dev

  1. debug for local repo, see above.

Publishing

To publish a new version to npm:

# For patch version update (0.0.x)
pnpm publish:patch

# For minor version update (0.x.0)
pnpm publish:minor

# For major version update (x.0.0)
pnpm publish:major

These commands will automatically:

  1. Bump the version in package.json

  2. Build the project

  3. Publish to npm registry

Credits

Available Tools

3 tools
get_user_infoA

Get information about a Bilibili user

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
midYesUser's numeric ID

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only operation through the verb 'Get', but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as error handling, rate limits, or return format. This is a neutral score because it is not misleading, but it adds minimal behavioral context.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the action and resource, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequately complete. It states the core purpose clearly, and while it could mention what specific information is returned, this is not critical for a basic user-info lookup.

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 100%, so the parameter 'mid' is fully documented in the schema as 'User's numeric ID'. The description does not add any additional semantic context beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the high coverage.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('information about a Bilibili user'). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_video_info and search_videos, which target different resource types.

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?

The description clearly implies when to use the tool: whenever you need information about a specific user. It provides clear context for usage, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. For a simple lookup tool, this is sufficient.

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

get_video_infoB

Get detailed information about a Bilibili video

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bvidYesBilibili video ID (BVID)

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention the return format, what fields constitute 'detailed information,' or any potential side effects (though 'get' implies read-only). It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the verb.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately minimal for a simple getter tool.

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

Completeness2/5

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

This tool has no output schema and no annotations, requiring the description to explain what return values to expect. The description only says 'detailed information' without specifying any fields or structure, leaving the agent with insufficient understanding of the output. Given the availability of sibling tools, it also doesn't clarify how this differs in output or use case.

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?

The input schema already fully documents the only parameter (bvid) with a description, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics such as format examples or constraints, so it performs at the baseline.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a Bilibili video'). It distinguishes from siblings by the resource type (video vs user/search), making its purpose clear.

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 description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus get_user_info or search_videos. Usage is only implied by the name and description: if you have a known BVID. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are given.

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

search_videosB

Search for videos on Bilibili

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countNoNumber of results to return, default 10, maximum 20
keywordYesKeyword to search for
pageNoPage number, defaults to 1

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention pagination behavior, result ordering, authentication, rate limits, or what is included in the results. The schema hints at page/count but the description itself adds no behavioral context.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler, making it highly concise. However, it is so terse that it omits useful context, though it still earns its place.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, and the description's brevity, the agent is left without crucial context such as return structure, pagination limits, edge cases, or conflict with siblings. The schema covers parameters but the description does not round out the tool's behavior.

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 100% with self-explanatory fields (keyword, page, count). The description adds no information beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: searching for videos on Bilibili. The verb 'search' distinguishes it from sibling tools get_user_info and get_video_info, which are direct lookups, and it specifies the resource and platform.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, nor any circumstances that would make it the preferred choice. It only states the basic functionality without any context or exclusions.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 3 tool updatesv1.0.0
    • First observedget_user_info
    • First observedget_video_info
    • First observedsearch_videos
Deploy Server
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Scored across 3 tools

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose targeting different resources: user information, video information, and video search. There is no overlap in functionality, making tool selection straightforward for an agent.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_user_info, get_video_info, search_videos) with clear, descriptive names that align well with their functions.

Tool Count3/5

With only 3 tools, the server feels thin for a Bilibili platform that likely has more capabilities (e.g., comments, playlists, subscriptions). While the tools cover basic operations, the count is borderline low for the domain's scope.

Completeness2/5

The toolset is severely incomplete for a Bilibili server, missing essential CRUD operations like creating or updating content, managing interactions (e.g., comments, likes), and accessing user-specific features (e.g., subscriptions, history). This will cause significant agent failures in broader workflows.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessUnresponsive

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers