Reads Bilibili reply and @ notification pages with native ID/time cursors, preserving reference IDs and quoted context for review without sending automatic replies.
Read reply/@ notification page and native id/time cursor, keeping reference IDs and quoted context; no automatic reply.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| num | No | ||
| kind | No | reply | |
| last_id | No | ||
| time_cursor | No |
| 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 must carry the full behavioral burden. It does convey that the operation is a read and is side-effect free ('no automatic reply'), and that it preserves reference IDs and quoted context for later follow-up, but it never explains the pagination contract for last_id/time_cursor or any auth/rate-limit behavior.
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 compact sentence with the verb front-loaded and no filler words. It borders on over-compression, but nothing is wasted.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the read-only nature is implied. However, for a 4-parameter tool with zero schema coverage and no annotations, the description leaves meaningful gaps around cursor semantics and parameter options.
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 all four parameters, so the description must compensate. It partially does: 'native id/time cursor' maps to last_id and time_cursor, and 'reply/@' hints at kind, but num and the exact format/relationship of the two cursors remain unexplained.
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 verb 'Read' and resource 'reply/@ notification page' are identifiable, so purpose is inferable. But the phrasing is compressed to the point of ambiguity ('native id/time cursor, keeping reference IDs and quoted context') and it never names itself against the closest siblings such as bili_dm_unread or bili_social_events.
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 only routing signal is the exclusion 'no automatic reply', which tells the agent this tool does not send replies but not when to pick it over bili_social_events, bili_dm_unread, or bili_comments. No explicit when-to-use or prerequisite guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.