Approve or reject incoming friend requests using a one-time flag, deciding whether to accept or decline the request and update both users' friend relationship.
同意或拒绝好友申请。会改变双方的好友关系。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| flag | Yes | 申请事件的 flag：来自好友申请事件，是一次性句柄，别自己编 | |
| approve | No | true=同意，false=拒绝，默认 true |
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 discloses a key behavioral effect—that approving or rejecting changes the friend relationship for both parties—but it does not cover permissions, reversibility, notifications, or other side effects expected for a mutation tool.
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, front-loaded sentences with no wasted text. It states the action first and then the primary consequence.
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 mutation tool with a fully covered schema and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it identifies the action and its relationship-changing effect. It stops short of describing permissions or return behavior, but those gaps are minor given the schema's parameter documentation.
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 both the one-time flag handle and the approve boolean. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score of 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 pair (同意或拒绝) and resource (好友申请), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling set_group_add_request by explicitly scoping to friend requests rather than group requests.
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?
Usage is implied by the purpose: handle an incoming friend request by approving or rejecting it. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling set_group_add_request, nor does it mention any prerequisites beyond what the schema already provides.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.