Poll Bilibili QR login status using the start key, then save retrieved credentials locally to finish authentication.
取回凭据并写入本地。
(finish QR code login, poll QR status)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | start_qr_login 返回的 key。 | |
| description | Yes | 格式为 工具名:目的。 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | ||
| message | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.12.1Input schema / properties / descriptionAdded value: +{
+ "description": "格式为 工具名:目的。",
+ "title": "Description",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "key"
-]New value: +[
+ "description",
+ "key"
+]v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the write and network nature is partially covered. The description adds little beyond this; offline credential persistence is not mentioned, and the output schema means return values needn't be explained. It also awkwardly says 'poll QR status', which implies a polling read behavior inconsistent with the declared write operation.
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 text is short but poorly structured: the main Chinese description is vague, the useful English gloss is relegated to a parenthetical below it, and the purpose is split across two lines. Front-loading the actual action would improve this significantly.
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?
Given this is a stateful two-step login flow with a sibling start_qr_login and a 100% schema coverage plus output schema, the description is just barely adequate. It names the flow step but omits prerequisites (requires a valid key from start_qr_login), state expectations (QR must be scanned), and the side effect of persisting credentials locally.
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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the linkage of 'key' to start_qr_login. This establishes the baseline of 3; the description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides.
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 English gloss 'finish QR code login' states a recognizable verb+resource, but the primary description is the vague Chinese phrase '取回凭据并写入本地' (retrieve credentials and write locally), which describes an effect rather than the operation. The parenthetical is more informative than the main text, which is backwards and muddled.
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?
The parenthetical 'finish QR code login, poll QR status' implies this is the completion step in a flow that starts with the sibling start_qr_login, which gives usable context. However it never explicitly says when to call this versus get_login_status, nor what preconditions exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.