Turn whole-group mute on or off for a OneBot group, letting you lock chat so only admins can speak or restore normal posting. Requires the target group ID and an enable flag.
开或关全员禁言。会改变整个群的状态。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| enable | No | true=开启全员禁言，false=关闭，默认 true | |
| group_id | Yes | 目标群号。用 get_group_list 取真实值，别凭记忆填 |
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 does warn that the whole group's state changes, which is useful scope context, but it omits permission requirements, whether the change is reversible, and who is affected by existing muted members.
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, front-loaded sentences describing action and impact with zero filler. Nothing is redundant.
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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description is adequate but thin: it lacks auth/permission notes and any indication of the result of the operation, which unannotated mutation tools should supply.
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% and both parameters are already documented in Chinese (enable defaults to true; group_id warns against guessing). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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+resource: toggle the whole-group mute (开或关全员禁言). '全员' (all members) implicitly distinguishes it from the per-member sibling set_group_ban, but no sibling is named explicitly.
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 tool's effect rather than stated. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over set_group_ban or set_group_admin, and no prerequisites (e.g. requiring bot admin rights) are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.