Fetch Bilibili video metadata—title, author, duration, stats, and description—from a BV id, video URL, or b23.tv short link.
Get Bilibili video metadata (title, author, duration, stats, description) by BV id, video URL or b23.tv short link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bvid | Yes | BV id、视频链接或 b23.tv 短链 | |
| page | No | 分P 序号（从 1 起）；缺省取 P1 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls short. It implies a read (returning metadata) but says nothing about auth/cookie requirements, rate limits, behavior on invalid BV ids or dead b23.tv links, or how multi-part videos are handled.
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 front-loaded sentence that packs the verb, resource, output fields, and accepted identifier formats with no wasted words.
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?
With no output schema, listing the returned fields is a useful substitute and the accepted ID formats are covered. The gaps are behavioral (auth, errors) and the unexplained `page`/multi-part semantics, which is why it falls short of a 5.
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 description coverage is 100% and both params are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing for the `page` (分P) parameter and only restates the accepted bvid formats that the schema already lists.
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?
States a specific verb (Get) and resource (Bilibili video metadata) and even enumerates the returned fields (title, author, duration, stats, description). It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling tools (douyin/detail, xiaohongshu/note), though the 'Bilibili' scoping implies the platform split.
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 only implied: use it when you need metadata for a Bilibili video. No when-not conditions, no mention of alternatives such as web/read for pages that aren't Bilibili videos, and no note that an invalid or private video will not resolve.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.