Retrieve group profile details such as group name and member count using a group ID. Read-only, with optional cache bypass for accurate data.
按群号查群资料（群名、人数等）。只读。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| group_id | Yes | 目标群号。用 get_group_list 取真实值，别凭记忆填 | |
| no_cache | No | true=跳过协议端缓存、向 QQ 重新拉一次（更慢但更准），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 declares the operation is read-only ('只读'), but does not explain authentication needs, rate limits, cache behavior, or response completeness beyond the brief field hints.
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 two short clauses and is front-loaded with the core action. Every element earns its place by naming the lookup key, the resource, and the read-only nature.
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 read tool with a fully described schema and no output schema, the description gives enough context to invoke it correctly. It could be stronger by naming sibling alternatives or cache behavior, but it is largely complete for the tool's complexity.
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 fully documents group_id and no_cache. The description adds no parameter-level details beyond implying that group_id is the lookup key, 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 verb and resource: query group profile by group ID, with examples of returned fields (group name, member count, etc.). It distinguishes broadly from list-style siblings, but does not explicitly contrast with tools like get_group_member_info or get_group_list.
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?
The description gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance beyond the implied action of looking up a group by ID. It does not mention alternatives such as get_group_list for discovering IDs or get_group_member_info for member data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.