video_infoRetrieve Bilibili video details, including title, description, cover, uploader, stats, parts, tags, and available subtitle languages. Use it to inspect a video from its BV/av ID or URL.
获取视频详情：标题、简介、封面、UP 主、统计、分P、标签、可用字幕语言。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | 分P 序号，从 1 开始 | |
| video | Yes | 视频标识：BV 号、av 号或视频链接，例如 BV1xx411c7mD / https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV... | |
| include_subtitles | No | 是否查询可用字幕语言（默认 true） |
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, setting a lower bar. The description adds useful context that the tool returns multiple metadata categories including available subtitle languages, but omits behavioral details like authentication requirements, rate limits, or pagination 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 front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and enumerates returned fields without any wasted words. The structure is efficient and immediately informative.
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-only metadata tool, the description is nearly complete: it enumerates the returned fields (compensating for the lack of an output schema) and annotations cover safety. Minor gaps remain around pagination behavior and how multi-part pages are handled.
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 all three parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax, defaults, or constraints beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 and resource: '获取视频详情', and enumerates the returned metadata fields (title, description, cover, uploader, statistics, multi-part, tags, subtitle languages). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like video_transcript or video_comments, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are provided. The only implied usage is the obvious one of fetching video details, but nothing helps an agent choose this over video_transcript, video_frames, or video_comments.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.