Follow or unfollow a single Bilibili user by UID with explicit permission; the action defaults to off and does not support blocking, marketing, or batch operations.
Follow/unfollow ONE UID only with explicit follow permission; defaults OFF. No block/marketing/batch.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uid | Yes | ||
| enabled | Yes | ||
| action_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description still discloses the two most important safety traits: a consent/permission gate and an off-by-default posture that prevents accidental follows. It omits idempotency, error behavior, and what unfollow does to existing state, but the output schema covers return values.
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?
A single dense sentence that front-loads the scope constraint and the permission prerequisite, then lists exclusions. No filler, nothing 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?
This is a state-changing social action with zero annotation coverage and three required, undocumented parameters, one of which (action_id) is completely opaque. The description establishes safety posture but leaves an agent unable to confidently construct the enabled/action_id semantics.
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 0%, so the description must compensate; it only clarifies that uid must be a single UID. The enabled boolean's direction and, critically, the purpose of the required action_id are never explained anywhere.
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 verb pair (follow/unfollow) on a specific resource (ONE UID), which immediately distinguishes it from batch or account-wide operations. The scope exclusions reinforce this, though the follow-vs-unfollow direction is never tied to a named parameter.
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?
Gives a clear precondition (only with explicit follow permission; defaults OFF) and explicit exclusions (no block/marketing/batch). It stops short of naming which sibling to use for those excluded cases, but the intended usage context is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.