bili_userRetrieve Bilibili user profile details—nickname, signature, level, followers, likes, and verification—from UID, space, or video links; optionally include recent uploads.
获取用户资料：昵称、签名、等级、粉丝数、获赞、认证，并可附带最近投稿。参数可以是 UID、空间链接或视频链接（取 UP 主）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | Yes | UID、space.bilibili.com 链接，或视频链接/BV号（自动取 UP 主） | |
| recent_videos | No | 附带最近投稿数量 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the payload shape (which profile fields come back, plus the optional recent-submission block), but says nothing about failure behavior for unknown users, auth requirements, or rate limits.
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?
A single compact sentence with the field list front-loaded after the colon and the optional recent-submissions capability appended last. Every clause carries information; there is no boilerplate.
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?
With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating the returned profile fields and noting the optional recent-video attachment. For a 2-parameter read tool this is nearly sufficient; only edge-case behavior for invalid or unresolvable input is omitted.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already fully documented with the same example forms (UID, space.bilibili.com link, video link/BV号). The description restates rather than adds, so baseline 3 is correct.
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 (获取) and resource (用户资料) and enumerates the returned fields (昵称、签名、等级、粉丝数、获赞、认证), so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not explicitly contrast with the overlapping sibling bili_resolve, which also accepts links, so differentiation is only partial.
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?
The description explains the accepted input forms, including the useful routing rule that a video link yields its UP 主, which is implicit guidance on when this tool applies. However, it never says when NOT to use it or name bili_resolve/bili_video_info as the alternative path for link resolution.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.