Retrieve the content nodes of a merged forwarded QQ message using its ID, enabling agents to inspect forwarded conversations.
获取合并转发消息的具体内容节点列表 (OneBot 11: get_forward_msg)。 :param message_id: 合并转发 ID (id / message_id)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message_id | Yes | 合并转发 ID (id / message_id) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that it retrieves a node list, but says nothing about read-only safety, permissions, response format beyond 'node list', or error behavior.
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 short and front-loads the purpose before the parameter line. The separate ':param' line duplicates the schema, but the overall structure remains efficient.
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 getter with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives minimal but adequate purpose and parameter info. It does not describe the returned node structure or any failure conditions, so it is only minimally complete.
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% for the single parameter, and the description simply repeats the schema's wording for message_id. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already documents the parameter fully.
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: it retrieves the content node list of a merged forward message, and it names the OneBot 11 action name. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like get_msg or send_private_forward_msg, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_msg or the send_*_forward_msg tools. The usage is only implied by the purpose statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.