send_group_msgSend a message to a designated QQ group, supporting plain text or rich content like images, emoji, and @mentions via OneBot message segments.
向指定群发送一条消息。message 可以是纯文本字符串，或 OneBot 消息段数组。要发图片用 [{type:'image',data:{file:'<本地路径或http(s)链接>'}}]；QQ表情用 {type:'face',data:{id:'<表情id>'}}；@人用 {type:'at',data:{qq:'<qq或all>'}}。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | Yes | 消息内容：纯文本或消息段数组 | |
| group_id | Yes | 目标群号 | |
| auto_escape | No | 消息内容是否作为纯文本发送（不解析CQ码） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate it is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds useful message-format behavior and syntax examples, but it does not disclose expected return values, failure modes, or how auto_escape affects sending beyond what the schema already states.
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 opens with the core action and then packs three useful syntax examples into a compact paragraph. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or 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?
For a direct send tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers the required target, the message content forms, and common special message types. It is slightly incomplete in not differentiating from send_msg and not mentioning return values, but the essential call is well specified.
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 the baseline is 3. The description adds real value by showing exact message-segment syntax for image, face, and at, which is not present in the schema. It does not add details about auto_escape, but the schema already documents that parameter well.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('向指定群发送一条消息') and clarifies that message can be plain text or a OneBot segment array. It is clearly distinct from send_private_msg, though it does not explicitly contrast with generic send_msg or send_group_forward_msg.
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?
It gives clear context for sending a one-off group message and concrete examples for image, face, and @ mentions. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over siblings like send_msg or send_group_forward_msg, nor provides exclusions; the usage guidance is mostly implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.