Toggle the like state on a single Bilibili video using an explicit action ID and permission flag; supports like or unlike one video only, with default disabled.
Like/unlike one video only with explicit like permission; defaults OFF. Stable action_id, no force/batch/retry.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bvid | 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 carries the full burden and discloses important behavior: explicit permission requirement, default OFF, single-video scope, stable action_id, and no force/batch/retry. It stops short of describing side effects or reversibility, but the output schema can cover 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?
The description is a single dense sentence with no filler, and it front-loads the action and permission constraint. Every clause adds a distinct behavioral rule.
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?
The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers key safety behavior around permission and batching. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, an agent is still left guessing about bvid and 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% for three required parameters. The description hints at bvid ('one video'), enabled ('defaults OFF'), and action_id ('stable action_id'), but never defines bvid format, what enabled=false does behaviorally, or how action_id is generated and used for idempotency.
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 names a specific verb pair (like/unlike) and resource (one video), and explicitly rules out batch/force/retry variants. It does not name a sibling tool, but the scope is clear enough to distinguish it from broader mutating tools.
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?
It states a meaningful precondition ('only with explicit like permission; defaults OFF'), which tells the agent when calling is permitted. However, it does not compare against sibling tools or explain when to use unlike versus like beyond the enabled flag.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.