Bilibili Video Info MCP

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, indicating a safe read operation with limited scope. The description adds valuable context by specifying the return format ('List of danmaku with content, timestamp and user information'), which is not covered by annotations, enhancing behavioral understanding.

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 well-structured with clear sections for purpose, args, and returns, using minimal sentences. However, the 'Args' and 'Returns' labels are slightly redundant given the schema context, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 read tool with annotations covering safety and scope, the description adequately explains purpose and parameters. However, without an output schema, it partially describes returns but lacks details like pagination or error handling, leaving some gaps in completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining the single parameter 'url' as a 'Bilibili video URL' with an example. This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail format constraints or edge cases.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Get danmaku') and resource ('from a Bilibili video'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_comments and get_subtitles by focusing on bullet comments rather than regular comments or subtitles. It provides a concrete example of the resource type.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_comments or get_subtitles. The description only states what the tool does without indicating scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions for its use.

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