Retrieve replies under a specified Bilibili root comment by content ID, with pagination controls for page number and size.
[评论] 读取指定根评论下的回复。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pn | No | ||
| ps | No | ||
| oid | Yes | ||
| root | Yes | ||
| type | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond the bare action – no mention of pagination defaults, ordering, reply-depth limits, or whether login is required.
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 short sentence, front-loaded with the resource tag and the action with no filler. Brevity is a virtue here, though it errs toward under-specification rather than excess.
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?
A 5-parameter, 0%-coverage tool with no output schema needs the description to explain oid, type, and pagination semantics; instead it leaves four parameters opaque, so an agent must guess what identifier oid expects.
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% across 5 parameters, so the description carries full burden, yet it only hints at the 'root' parameter and says nothing about oid (the target video/dynamic id), pn/ps pagination, or the type discriminator. One of the most consequential parameters (type) is completely 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?
States a specific verb and resource: read replies under a given root comment. The '[评论]' tag and 'root comment' scoping distinguish it from the sibling bilibili_comments, which lists top-level comments, though it never names that sibling explicitly.
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 guidance on when to use this instead of bilibili_comments or how to obtain a root comment id first. The phrase '指定根评论' only implies a prerequisite; alternatives and exclusions are absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.