Add or remove emoji reactions on a QQ message. Use message ID and emoji ID to toggle the reaction.
对指定消息添加或取消表情回应 / 贴表情 (NapCat 扩展接口: set_msg_emoji_like)。 :param message_id: 目标消息 ID :param emoji_id: 表情 ID (如 128077 表示👍，或 QQ 表情 ID) :param set_like: True 为添加贴表情，False 为取消
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| emoji_id | Yes | 表情 ID (如 128077 表示👍，或 QQ 表情 ID) | |
| set_like | No | True 为添加贴表情，False 为取消 | |
| message_id | Yes | 目标消息 ID |
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 does disclose the key behavioral axis (add vs. cancel via set_like) and that this is a non-standard NapCat extension endpoint, which is useful context. However it says nothing about permission requirements, failure modes for invalid message/emoji IDs, or reversibility beyond the flag.
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 first sentence front-loads the purpose well, but the following three :param lines are redundant with a schema that already has 100% coverage, so they do not earn their place. The mixed Chinese/English docstring style is functional but not optimized for an agent reader.
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 three-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core operation but omits return/result semantics and error behavior. It is minimally adequate rather than 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 schema already documents all three parameters. The description's :param lines are verbatim copies of the schema descriptions and add no new meaning. The example (128077 = 👍) is helpful but already present in the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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 pair and resource: add or remove an emoji reaction on a specified message. It also tags the operation as a NapCat extension API, which helps distinguish it from standard actions. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as send_like (user-level like) or send_poke, leaving that inference to the agent.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., group membership or permissions), and no mention of alternatives like send_like for liking a user. The set_like flag semantics are explained, but that is parameter behavior, not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.