Retrieve a QQ user's profile information by providing their user ID, with an option to bypass cached data for fresh results.
Get stranger information
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_id | Yes | User QQ number | |
| no_cache | No | Whether to skip cache |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only states a read-like intent without mentioning caching behavior, error conditions, or permissions. It doesn't even mention that the no_cache parameter affects 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?
The description is short enough, but it is under-specified rather than concise: all three words merely restate the name. It provides no front-loaded useful assertion that earns its place.
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?
With no output schema, no annotations, and a vague description, the agent is missing information about what 'stranger information' actually includes and when the call is appropriate. The complete parameter schema is the only reason this is not a 1.
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%, with user_id explained as 'User QQ number' and no_cache as 'Whether to skip cache'. The tool description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 'Get stranger information' is essentially a restatement of the tool name get_stranger_info, adding no detail about what specific fields or entity are covered. It does not distinguish this from sibling tools like get_group_member_info or get_friend_list.
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 is provided about when to use this tool instead of sibling get-group/get-friend tools, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given. An agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.