Mute a specific member in a QQ group for a chosen duration, or lift an existing mute by setting the duration to 0. Use it to enforce group moderation through OneBot 11.
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.
v1.1.0Input 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 behavioral burden. It does disclose meaningful semantics (duration=0 means unban, default 1800s), but omits whether the bot must be a group admin, whether the target can be an owner/admin, and what happens on permission failure — significant gaps for a restrictive mutation.
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?
Front-loaded single sentence stating the action, followed by three compact param notes. The param list largely duplicates the schema, which is mild redundancy but not verbosity.
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-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers enough to invoke it correctly (required ids plus duration semantics) but leaves authorization requirements and error/return behavior undocumented.
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% and the description repeats the schema text for user_id and duration verbatim, adding no syntax or edge-case detail beyond the default and the 0-means-unban rule. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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 pair and resource: '群聊单人禁言或解禁' (mute/unmute a single group member), with the 'OneBot 11: set_group_ban' mapping. The word '单人' (single member) implicitly separates it from sibling set_group_whole_ban, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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 only implied: the description notes duration=0 lifts the ban and the default is 1800s, which hints at the mute/unmute duality. It never states when to prefer this over set_group_kick, set_group_whole_ban, or get_group_shut_list, nor any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.