Retrieve a QQ member's group profile, including card and role, using a group ID and user ID. Read-only; optionally bypass cache for fresh data.
查指定 QQ 在某个群里的资料（名片、角色等）。只读。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_id | Yes | 目标成员的 QQ 号 | |
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the key trait that the operation is read-only (只读), which is valuable, but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or the shape of the returned profile data.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scoping, with the read-only flag placed last. Nothing is wasted, though it is terse enough to leave gaps.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description is the only place return content could be described, and it only gestures at it with 名片、角色等. Combined with the missing usage guidance against siblings, it is adequate but leaves real gaps for a lookup 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 all three parameters are already documented, including the useful cache hint on no_cache. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is 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 names a specific verb and resource (query a given QQ's profile within a group) and lists example fields (名片/角色). It is clear about what it returns, though it never distinguishes itself from the sibling get_group_member_list, which an agent could easily confuse it with.
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, and no mention of the obvious alternative get_group_member_list. The agent must infer that this is the single-member lookup versus the list tool on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.