send_group_noticePublish announcements to QQ groups, with options for pinning, images, and member confirmation. Requires bot's announce permission.
在群内发布公告。需要机器人具有发公告权限（NapCat 专用动作 _send_group_notice）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | 公告类型 | |
| image | No | 公告附带图片URL | |
| pinned | No | 是否置顶 | |
| content | Yes | 公告内容 | |
| group_id | Yes | 群号 | |
| confirm_required | No | 成员是否需要确认 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description adds that the bot must hold a specific permission and that this wraps a NapCat-specific action. This is useful behavioral context for an agent deciding whether the current environment supports the call. No contradiction with annotations.
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, tightly written sentence that front-loads the core action and then adds the essential prerequisite. No filler or redundant phrasing; every clause earns its place.
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 mutating tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key non-obvious context: permission requirements and NapCat specificity. The remaining details (such as optional params' runtime effects) are fully documented in the schema, so nothing critical is missing for a correct invocation.
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%, and each parameter has a description in the schema. The tool description itself does not add parameter-level meaning, so a baseline 3 is appropriate; the schema carries the burden and does so adequately.
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: '在群内发布公告' (publish an announcement in the group). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like send_group_msg by targeting the announcement-specific action rather than normal messaging, and even names the underlying NapCat action for precision.
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 provides a clear prerequisite (permission to post announcements) and hints at environment specificity (NapCat-dedicated action), but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like send_group_msg or state when not to use this tool. The usage context is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.