Retrieve the current logged-in QQ account's user ID and nickname to identify which account is active during automation or monitoring.
获取当前登录的 QQ 账号信息 (返回 user_id 与 nickname) (OneBot 11: get_login_info)。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 burden. It does disclose the return fields (user_id, nickname), which is real behavioral value since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about failure modes (e.g. not logged in) or permissions. Adequate for a zero-parameter read, but thin.
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 with the return fields called out early. The trailing parenthetical endpoint reference is mildly redundant but short and informative.
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, the description compensates by naming the returned fields, and it maps to the OneBot 11 API for traceability. Only the error/not-logged-in case is left unspecified, which is a minor gap for this simple read.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline a 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond confirming no input is needed.
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 and resource ('获取当前登录的 QQ 账号信息') and even names the underlying OneBot 11 endpoint. The word '当前' (current) implicitly distinguishes it from list_qq_accounts, but no sibling is named 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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are mentioned. The agent must infer on its own that this is the single-account read vs. list_qq_accounts or get_napcat_status.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.