Extract text from images via QQ's built-in OCR engine. Provide an image file ID, local path, or HTTP URL to convert picture text into readable results.
调用 QQ 内置 OCR 引擎识别图片中的文字 (NapCat OneBot 11: ocr_image)。 :param image: 图片文件 ID、本地绝对路径或 HTTP URL
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| image | Yes | 图片文件 ID、本地绝对路径或 HTTP URL |
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it partially meets it by naming the underlying engine (QQ built-in OCR) and API action, which hints at a runtime dependency on NapCat. However, it says nothing about whether the image is mutated or read-only, what the returned text format looks like, size limits, or failure modes for unsupported formats.
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?
Two compact lines with the purpose front-loaded and no wasted prose. The ':param image' line restates the schema verbatim, which is mild redundancy but not harmful.
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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool this is nearly sufficient, but it omits any hint of the return shape (recognized text string), which is the primary thing a caller needs to know. Bilingual framing (Chinese description with the OneBot action name) is helpful context.
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 baseline is 3. The description repeats the schema's parameter text verbatim ('图片文件 ID、本地绝对路径或 HTTP URL') without adding syntax, precedence, or constraints. It does not compensate for or extend the schema.
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: OCR-based recognition of text in an image using the QQ built-in engine, plus the underlying NapCat OneBot action name. No sibling tool overlaps this function, so differentiation is not a real concern. Clear and unambiguous.
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 is given; it only implies usage by describing the mechanism. There are no alternatives named and no conditions for selecting this tool over, say, a generic file-download or msg tool. The agent must infer that this is the tool for extracting text from an image.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.