Leave a QQ group chat or dismiss it as owner. Provide group_id, set is_dismiss true to disband when you are the group owner.
退出群聊或解散群聊 (OneBot 11: set_group_leave)。 :param group_id: 群号 :param is_dismiss: 是否解散群 (仅当自己是群主时有效)，默认 False
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| group_id | Yes | 群号 | |
| is_dismiss | No | 是否解散群 (仅当自己是群主时有效)，默认 False |
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 behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the owner-only precondition for is_dismiss, but omits that this is an irreversible self-removal/mutation, whether the bot loses access to the group afterward, or any permission/error 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?
Front-loaded with the action and the API reference, then the params. It is short and readable, though the :param block is pure duplication of the schema and earns no extra value.
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 two-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, params, and one precondition. It still leaves the agent guessing about reversibility, side effects on group membership, and failure modes.
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 coverage is 100% and the two :param lines simply restate the schema descriptions verbatim, adding no new syntax, ranges, or edge cases. Baseline 3 applies when the schema already does the documenting.
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+resource pair with two clear modes: leaving a group or dismissing it, and names the underlying OneBot action. It is distinguishable from write-oriented siblings like set_group_kick, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with any of them.
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 two named modes (leave vs. dismiss), and it adds one real precondition — dismissal only works when the caller is the group owner. It does not say when to prefer this over related tools such as set_group_kick or set_group_ban.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.