Fetch recent QQ group notice events and pending friend/group join requests, returning approval flags for set_friend_add_request or set_group_add_request.
获取后台实时捕获的近期群通知事件 (如群文件上传、撤回、禁言、成员增减) 以及加好友/加群验证请求。 返回的 flag 字段可直接传入 set_friend_add_request 或 set_group_add_request 进行审批。 :param count: 最大返回条数，默认 20
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | 最大返回条数，默认 20 |
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. It discloses that events are captured in real time and held as a recent buffer, and that returned items carry a flag field, but it says nothing about buffer lifetime, whether reading consumes/clears events, ordering, or the fact that a sibling (clear_recent_messages_buffer) exists.
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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the flag-to-approval linkage follows logically, with no filler. The only flaw is the leftover ':param count:' docstring marker embedded in prose, which is a minor formatting artifact rather than wasted content.
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 annotations and no output schema, the description must explain both behavior and returns. It does describe the kinds of events and the flag field, but leaves out buffer scope, whether results are paginated or capped by the count parameter (beyond restating the default), and whether events persist across calls.
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 count parameter is already fully documented. The description's trailing ':param count: 最大返回条数，默认 20' merely repeats the schema text verbatim and adds no new semantics; baseline 3 is 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 states a specific verb and resource: retrieving recent group notification events (file upload, recall, mute, member changes) plus friend/group add-verification requests. It is concrete about the payload categories, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_group_system_msg, get_recent_messages, or get_recent_contact, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.
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 establishes a useful downstream workflow by naming set_friend_add_request and set_group_add_request as consumers of the returned flag field, which is real routing value. However, it never states when this tool is the right source versus get_group_system_msg or get_recent_contact, and there are no exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.