Verifies which Bilibili account is tied to the locally configured cookie without exposing the raw cookie value, so you can confirm session identity before browsing or scheduling reading cycles.
Verify the account behind the locally configured cookie. Never outputs raw cookie.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context beyond that: it operates on a locally configured cookie and deliberately never emits the raw cookie, a privacy trait invisible in the annotations. It does not say what happens on auth failure, which keeps it short of a 5.
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 short sentences, the purpose first and the output restriction second. Nothing is redundant or padded.
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?
For a no-param, no-output-schema read tool, the definition covers purpose, data source and output restriction. A little is missing about the success/failure signal (e.g. what an unauthenticated result looks like), which matters for a verification call an agent will branch on.
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 correctly signals that configuration comes from a local cookie rather than from arguments, which is the only parameter-relevant fact.
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 ('verify') and a specific resource (the account behind the locally configured cookie), which resolves the ambiguity of the opaque name 'whale_session'. It is implicitly distinct from data-fetching siblings like whale_popular or whale_video, but the differentiation is never made explicit.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is an identity/auth-check step, but the description never says when to call it (e.g. before write operations like whale_record) or when not to. No alternative or prerequisite is named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.