Update the logged-in QQ account's profile picture by supplying a local image path, HTTP URL, or base64 data string.
修改当前登录 QQ 账号的头像 (NapCat 扩展接口: set_qq_avatar)。 :param file: 图片本地绝对路径、HTTP URL 或 base64:// 字符串
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file | Yes | 图片本地绝对路径、HTTP URL 或 base64:// 字符串 |
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers little beyond the verb. It does not say whether the change is immediate or permanent, whether it requires elevated permissions or a specific login state, what happens on invalid URLs, or that it is a NapCat extension outside the standard API surface (beyond a parenthetical label).
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 description is short and front-loads the purpose before any detail. The ':param file:' sentence is a redundant echo of the schema and does not earn its place, which keeps it out of the top score.
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 single-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: the parameter is fully covered by the schema, but the agent gets no information about success/failure behavior, side effects on active sessions, or permission prerequisites.
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 accepted formats (local absolute path, HTTP URL, base64:// string) are already fully documented in the schema. The description's ':param file:' line duplicates that schema text verbatim and adds no new meaning, which is the baseline 3 case for high coverage.
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 the avatar of the currently logged-in QQ account. The scope phrase '当前登录 QQ 账号' implicitly separates it from the sibling set_group_portrait (which targets a group) and from set_qq_profile, but no sibling is named explicitly, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.
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, when-not-to-use, or alternative-selection guidance. An agent must infer from the name and scope that this is the right tool for account avatars rather than group portraits, with nothing in the text confirming that.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.