Fetch a QQ user's public profile, including nickname, gender, age, level, and signature, by user ID, with an option to bypass cached data.
获取指定 QQ 用户（好友或陌生人）的公开个人资料 (昵称、性别、年龄、等级、个性签名等) (OneBot 11: get_stranger_info)。 :param user_id: 目标 QQ 号 :param no_cache: 是否不使用缓存
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_id | Yes | 目标 QQ 号 | |
| no_cache | No | 是否不使用缓存 |
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 behavioral burden. It implies read-only retrieval and mentions a no_cache option, but it does not disclose permissions, rate limits, error behavior, or what happens when no_cache is used beyond restating the schema.
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 front-loaded with the tool's purpose and then lists returned fields and parameters. It is reasonably concise, though the parameter notes duplicate the schema and add little new information.
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 profile lookup with no output schema, the description helpfully lists the returned fields and covers both parameters. It is largely complete for calling the tool, though it lacks explicit output shape and behavioral caveats.
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 both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description restates 'user_id' and 'no_cache' without adding format, constraints, or behavior beyond what the schema already provides.
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+resource: fetching the public profile of a specified QQ user (friend or stranger), with example fields like nickname, gender, age, level, and signature. It is distinct from most siblings, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related tools such as get_group_member_info or get_friend_list.
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?
The description provides no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives to consider. It says what the tool does but not when an agent should choose it over sibling tools like get_group_member_info or get_friend_list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.