Send profile-card likes to a specified QQ friend using their user ID; optionally set the number of likes from 1 to 10.
向指定好友资料卡点赞 (OneBot 11: send_like)。 :param user_id: 对方 QQ 号 :param times: 点赞次数 (1~10，默认 10)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| times | No | 点赞次数 (1~10，默认 10) | |
| user_id | Yes | 对方 QQ 号 |
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 mentions the action and the times range/default, but does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, rate limits, or what happens on repeated calls. This is minimal for a side-effecting action.
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 short and front-loads the purpose, followed by parameter notes. The parameter lines largely repeat the input schema, which slightly reduces efficiency, but the overall text is concise.
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 two-parameter action with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the basic call requirements. However, it leaves behavioral context and usage routing to the agent, so it is adequate but not complete.
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 duplicates the schema parameter descriptions exactly and adds no extra meaning or format details 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 and resource: liking a specified friend's profile card, and identifies the underlying OneBot 11 action 'send_like'. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from similar siblings such as set_msg_emoji_like or send_poke, so it falls short of a 5.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The implied usage is simply that it likes a friend's profile card, but no routing information is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.