DouYuSearcher MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the return format (Markdown table with specific fields) and hints at output behavior (image tags for URLs), but does not cover error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or data freshness. It adequately explains what the tool does but lacks operational details.

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 well-structured with bilingual sections for Args and Returns, making it easy to parse. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary details. However, the bilingual duplication slightly reduces efficiency, though it remains concise overall.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It explains the purpose, parameter, and return format in detail. Minor gaps include lack of error handling or performance notes, but for a simple read operation, this is sufficient.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It provides clear semantics for the single parameter 'room_id,' including its type (int), purpose (DouYu room ID), and an example (71415), adding significant value beyond the bare schema. No other parameters exist, making this comprehensive.

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 clearly states the specific action ('get room information') and resource ('DouYu room'), distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'search_rooms' which likely searches for rooms rather than retrieving by ID. The bilingual format reinforces the purpose without redundancy.

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 implies usage by specifying 'by room ID,' which differentiates it from the sibling 'search_rooms' (suggesting search-based retrieval). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites, such as valid ID ranges or error cases.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.