Retrieve all QQ groups joined by the current account, including IDs, names, member counts, and capacity. Set no_cache to true to refresh the list instead of using cached data.
获取当前账号已加入的所有 QQ 群列表 (包含 group_id, group_name, member_count, max_member_count 等) (OneBot 11: get_group_list)。 :param no_cache: 是否强制刷新最新群列表而不使用缓存，默认 True
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| no_cache | No | 是否强制刷新最新群列表而不使用缓存，默认 True |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falsev1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses caching behavior via no_cache and lists the returned fields, but it does not discuss permissions, rate limits, or any other operational traits beyond that.
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 core list description is front-loaded and efficient, but the appended ':param no_cache' line redundantly repeats schema content. It is still compact overall, with minor structural awkwardness rather than bloat.
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 read-only list operation with one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it names the resource, returned fields, and caching behavior. The main gap is the absence of explicit usage routing, but nothing critical is missing for invocation.
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%, so the single parameter is already fully documented. The description repeats the no_cache explanation but adds no syntax, constraints, or meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: it retrieves the full list of QQ groups the current account has joined, and it names returned fields and the OneBot 11 action. It clearly separates itself from single-group siblings like get_group_info, but it does not explicitly name any alternative, so it falls just short of full sibling differentiation.
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 phrase 'all QQ groups the current account has joined,' which tells an agent when this tool is relevant. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative for cases where a single group or another listing is needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.