Retrieve a QQ bot gateway event's payload schema, required intents, and examples so you can implement correct event handling for types like C2C_MESSAGE_CREATE or GROUP_AT_MESSAGE_CREATE.
Get one event payload schema, required intents and examples (e.g. C2C_MESSAGE_CREATE, GROUP_AT_MESSAGE_CREATE).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish this as a read-only, idempotent operation, so the description needn't repeat safety details. It adds useful behavioral context by saying the result includes the payload schema, required intents, and examples, which tells the agent what information it can rely on. It does not cover behavior for unknown event names or error handling.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the action and result, with concrete examples appended. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.
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 one-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential outputs (payload schema, required intents, examples). The only material gap is the lack of explicit guidance on the 'name' parameter and unknown-name behavior.
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 has only one parameter ('name') with 0% description coverage, so the description needs to compensate. The examples strongly imply that 'name' should be an event type identifier, but the description never states this explicitly or gives format constraints beyond the sample values.
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 ('Get one event payload schema') and concretely lists what comes back: required intents and examples. It implicitly contrasts with the sibling 'list_event_types' by emphasizing a single event type, but does not name that alternative explicitly.
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 implied by the examples ('C2C_MESSAGE_CREATE', 'GROUP_AT_MESSAGE_CREATE') and by the fact that it fetches one event type's schema. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus 'list_event_types' or when it is inappropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.