noyacg-mcp

徽章列表

noy_list_badges

Read-only

Lists all badges available to an account and their wearing status, exposing the real badge IDs required to change which badge is displayed.

Instructions

列出账号可用的全部徽章和佩戴状态（真实徽章 ID 在这里，userinfo 里的 Id 恒为 0）。要改佩戴状态用 noy_set_badge，不要直接调接口（它不校验 ID，会写脏值）。

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "noy_list_badges"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds non-obvious context beyond them: the badge IDs here are the authoritative ones whereas userinfo's Id is always 0, and the raw-API path corrupts data. It stops short of describing ordering, completeness, or response shape for a tool with no output schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three compact clauses, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the cross-tool caveat, then the safety warning. No filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden; it does so partially by naming badges, wear status, and authoritative IDs, but does not say whether all badges in the system or only worn ones are included or how results are ordered.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There are zero input parameters, so the baseline is 4; to be precise, the description's note about the real badge ID versus userinfo's constant 0 enriches how the agent reads the identifier, even though it does not concern parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and resource (列出…全部徽章) and scopes it to '可用的' badges plus 佩戴状态, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It is clearly distinct from noy_set_badge's mutation role, which it names as the alternative.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It states when to use this tool (read badge list/status) and when to use the sibling (noy_set_badge for changing status), plus an explicit exclusion: do not call the raw API because it skips ID validation and will write dirty values.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.