get_stranger_infoFetch profile details for any QQ user by ID, even if not on your friend list. Use this to access user information for verification or lookup.
获取指定QQ用户的信息（无需为好友）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_id | Yes | QQ号 | |
| no_cache | No | 是否不使用缓存 |
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 and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the friendship-requirement context but does not disclose caching behavior, rate limits, or return format; with annotations present, the burden is lower, making this 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?
The description is a single efficient sentence that front-loads the operation and includes the key differentiator. There is no filler, redundant restatement, or unnecessary detail.
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 simple two-parameter read-only lookup with annotations covering safety, the definition is largely complete. The only notable gap is that '信息' does not enumerate what fields will be returned, and no_cache behavior is left entirely to the schema, but an agent can still invoke the tool correctly.
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?
Input schema coverage is 100%: user_id is documented as 'QQ号' and no_cache as '是否不使用缓存'. The description only restates the idea of a specified QQ user and adds no semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
The description uses a specific verb (获取) and resource (指定QQ用户的信息), and adds '无需为好友' which distinguishes it from friend- or group-member-scoped info tools among the siblings. It is not a mere restatement of the name/title.
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 phrase '无需为好友' clearly signals the primary use case: retrieving info for a QQ user who is not necessarily a friend. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, but the usage context is clear and excludes no relevant cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.