Approve or reject pending OneBot group join requests to control whether new members are added to a group.
同意或拒绝加群申请。会改变群的成员构成。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| flag | Yes | 申请事件的 flag：来自加群申请事件，是一次性句柄 | |
| type | No | 同 sub_type 的老写法，两者都没有时按 add | |
| reason | No | 拒绝时给对方的理由，同意时忽略 | |
| approve | No | true=同意，false=拒绝，默认 true | |
| sub_type | No | 申请类型：add=申请入群，invite=被邀请人；不传按 add 处理 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool 'will change group member composition' (会改变群的成员构成), but this is partially inaccurate for rejection and omits permission requirements, rate limits, and other side effects.
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 core action and a side-effect note. No wasted words.
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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and five parameters, the description is thin. While parameters are covered by the schema, the description lacks usage context, prerequisites, and detailed behavioral disclosure.
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 five parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level details, so 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?
States a specific action 'approve or reject group join requests' (同意或拒绝加群申请), clearly identifying verb and resource. It does not explicitly reference siblings like set_friend_add_request, but the resource 'group join request' implicitly distinguishes it from other request tools.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor on prerequisites or event context. The description only states the action, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.