Retrieve a paginated list of a Bilibili user's public followings by vmid, with page number and page size controls; platform visibility limits may restrict results.
[用户] 分页读取用户公开关注列表；平台会限制可见范围。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pn | No | ||
| ps | No | ||
| vmid | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to restate safety. It does add value by disclosing that pagination is required and that platform-side visibility restrictions can truncate results — a real behavioral caveat. However it omits whether invisibility means empty list vs. error, and does not mention the page-depth cap (pn max 1000) that bounds enumeration.
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, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the visibility caveat trailing. No filler, though the '[用户]' tag is decorative rather than 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?
Three undocumented integer parameters, no output schema, and a tool whose results are inherently paginated and gated by privacy settings. The description leaves the agent without parameter meaning, page-size semantics, or what an empty/restricted response looks like, which is inadequate for correct invocation.
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%: pn, ps, and vmid have no descriptions at all. The description only implies pagination ('分页') and a user target, without defining vmid as the user ID, pn as page number, or ps as page size, nor their ranges/defaults in words. With zero schema coverage the description had the full burden of explaining parameters and did not meet it.
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: paginated reading of a user's public following list. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling write operation bilibili_user_follow and from bilibili_user_relation_stats, though the bracketed '[用户]' prefix adds no information.
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 versus alternatives such as bilibili_user_relation_stats (counts) or bilibili_user_feed (dynamics). The only guidance-adjacent remark is the caveat that the platform restricts visible scope, which hints at partial results but does not route the agent between tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.