Update or clear a QQ group member's group card/nickname by specifying group ID, target user ID, and new card text; pass an empty string to clear it.
修改群成员的群名片 / 群昵称 (OneBot 11: set_group_card)。 :param group_id: 群号 :param user_id: 目标成员 QQ 号 :param card: 新群名片内容 (传空字符串表示清空群名片)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| card | No | 新群名片内容 (传空字符串表示清空群名片) | |
| user_id | Yes | 目标成员 QQ 号 | |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for a mutation tool. It discloses one useful behavioral trait — an empty string clears the card — but that same note is already in the schema, and it says nothing about required permissions, whether the bot can rename itself or only others, or failure behavior.
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?
Purpose is front-loaded in the first line, which is good, but the three ':param' lines duplicate the schema descriptions verbatim and consume most of the length without adding 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 three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action and its parameters but omits permission requirements and result semantics, leaving meaningful gaps for correct invocation.
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 group_id, user_id, and card are all already documented in the schema. The description merely restates those same descriptions, adding no format, range, or edge-case detail beyond 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: modifying a group member's card/nickname, and cites the underlying OneBot 11 action name. An agent can distinguish it from neighbours like set_group_name or set_qq_profile, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with set_group_special_title or set_friend_remark.
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 statement of when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g. admin/owner rights needed to change another member's card), and no exclusions. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the param list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.