Send likes to a QQ user by providing their user ID. Optionally specify the number of likes to send, enabling repeated likes in one call.
Send like
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| times | No | Like count | |
| user_id | Yes | User QQ number |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Send like' with no mention of side effects, target semantics, limits, authentication, or expected result.
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?
Two words are under-specified rather than concise. The description repeats the tool name without earning its place or conveying meaningful information.
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?
Even for a simple two-parameter tool, the description fails to explain what the like operation does, what it acts on, or what the agent should expect. Without output schema or annotations, an agent cannot confidently use the tool.
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 described as 'User QQ number' and times as 'Like count'. The description itself adds no further parameter semantics, so the baseline score 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 'Send like' simply restates the tool name without specifying the actual resource or action. It does not disambiguate from other send_* or get_* sibling tools.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like send_msg, send_group_msg, or send_private_msg. The description provides no usage context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.