Retrieve the logged-in user's Bilibili favorite folders using cookie authentication. Access saved video collections for note creation and organization.
当前登录用户创建的收藏夹列表（需登录 Cookie）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly exposes the authentication requirement (login Cookie) and scopes the result to the current user, which is meaningful beyond the tool name. It does not mention pagination, sorting, or error behavior, but for a simple read-only list operation this is a minor gap.
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?
One compact sentence conveys purpose, scope, and authentication requirement with no filler. The main object is front-loaded and the condition is neatly appended.
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?
The tool has no parameters and no output schema, and the description covers the essential invocation condition (login Cookie) and result scope. It could additionally describe the returned folder shape, but that is not required for a correct call.
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?
There are 0 parameters in the input schema, so there is nothing for the description to document. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description correctly adds no extraneous parameter claims.
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 the resource ('favorite folders') and the ownership scope ('created by current logged-in user'), and '列表' conveys a listing operation. This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like list_favorite_videos, which target a different resource type.
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 defines the applicable context: the current logged-in user's own created favorite folders and requires a login cookie. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, so it doesn't reach a 5, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.