Mute or unmute a specific QQ group member by setting a ban duration, with 0 lifting the mute. Use for group moderation and controlling member chat access.
群聊单人禁言或解禁 (OneBot 11: set_group_ban)。 :param group_id: 群号 :param user_id: 目标成员 QQ 号 :param duration: 禁言时长(秒)，设为 0 表示解除禁言，默认 1800 (30分钟)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_id | Yes | 目标成员 QQ 号 | |
| duration | No | 禁言时长(秒)，设为 0 表示解除禁言，默认 1800 (30分钟) | |
| group_id | Yes | 群号 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavioral fact that duration=0 lifts the ban and the default is 1800 seconds, which is genuinely useful. However, it omits permission requirements (admin/bot rights), what happens if the target is invalid or already banned, and rate-limit behavior for a mutation tool.
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 opening sentence is tight and front-loaded, but the trailing :param lines duplicate the input schema exactly, adding length without new information. Front-loading is good; the redundant parameter restatement costs it a point.
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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core semantics (including the duration=0 unmute sentinel) but says nothing about permissions, error conditions, or response. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent would want filled.
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 schema already documents all three parameters, and the description's :param block repeats them verbatim with no added syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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: single-member mute/unmute in a group chat, and references the OneBot 11 action name. The word '单人' (single person) implicitly distinguishes it from the whole-group ban sibling set_group_whole_ban, so an agent can route correctly.
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?
Usage is implied by the description ('mute or unmute a member'), but no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives are given. The contrast with set_group_whole_ban must be inferred from the word '单人'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.