list_favoritesList Bilibili favorites or read videos inside a specific favorite folder with pagination and search. Use it to browse saved content, view folder items, and filter by keyword, sort order, or page.
不传 folder_id 时列出收藏夹；传 folder_id 时读取该收藏夹的视频内容（支持分页）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ps | No | 每页 1-40 | |
| page | No | 页码 | |
| order | No | 排序：mtime / view / pubtime | mtime |
| keyword | No | 收藏夹内搜索关键词 | |
| folder_id | No | 收藏夹 media_id；不传则只列收藏夹 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0-beta.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and scope are covered structurally. The description adds the dual-mode output behavior and pagination support, which is useful, but says nothing about authentication requirements (auth_status exists as a sibling) or what the returned items look like.
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 sentence with zero padding, front-loading the no-folder_id case before the folder_id case so the default behavior is read first.
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 5-param read-only tool the description covers the two operating modes and pagination, which is what an agent needs to pick the right call. It omits any sense of the return shape, but with no output schema and annotation-covered safety this is a minor gap.
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 100%, so ps, page, order, and keyword are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the folder_id semantics (parameter-conditional mode) that the schema itself already explains; it adds no syntax, format, or default details beyond that.
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 (list/read) and two concrete resources (收藏夹 folders vs 收藏夹内的视频), and its behavior is conditional on folder_id. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as favorite_video (a write) or search, though it does not explicitly name any sibling.
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 the exact condition that selects each mode: without folder_id you get folders, with folder_id you get that folder's videos. This is real when-to-use guidance, but there is no explicit exclusion or pointer to an alternative tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.