Find trending Bilibili cultural tourism videos using keyword and date filters. Returns videos ranked by likes, with daily data updates; confirm missing dates before querying.
文旅B站信息源查询：按关键词与日期获取文旅类B站热门视频(点赞量排序)。数据每日15:00更新前一天，无数据日期必须确认后再查
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | 数据日期 YYYY-MM-DD（默认最近数据日） | |
| count | No | 最大返回条数 1-200（默认100） | |
| keyword | No | 内容关键词，如 文旅、景区、旅游攻略（留空返回全部） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v1.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: a daily 15:00 update lag, sorting by likes, and a no-data-date confirmation requirement. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or output details, but the disclosed behaviors are substantive for invocation decisions.
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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the tool's identity ('文旅B站信息源查询'), then state scope, sort order, update timing, and a caveat. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.
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 low-complexity, three-optional-parameter query tool, the description covers purpose, data freshness, sorting, and an important edge case about missing data. The only gap is that no output schema or return-shape description is provided, which is a minor omission for a feed-style tool.
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 date, count, and keyword semantics. The description's mention of '按关键词与日期' adds nothing material beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 action ('获取') on a specific resource ('文旅类B站热门视频') and adds the sorting criterion (点赞量排序). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling cultural-tourism feeds for other platforms by naming B站, and from generic Bilibili tools by the 文旅 qualifier.
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?
It gives useful operational context: data updates daily at 15:00 for the previous day, and dates without data must be confirmed before querying. It does not explicitly compare to sibling alternatives like bilibili-keywords-search or cultural-tourism-douyin-feed, so it stops short of full alternative-routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.