Approve or reject incoming QQ friend requests by providing the request flag and optional remark.
Handle friend request
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| flag | Yes | Friend request flag | |
| remark | No | Friend remark | |
| approve | No | Whether to approve |
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 full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Handle friend request' reveals nothing about side effects, permissions required, reversibility, or whether it adds a friend or merely processes the request. This is essentially a tautology of the tool name.
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 very short, but brevity comes at the cost of usefulness. The words 'handle' and 'friend request' add little beyond the tool name, so the sentence does not earn 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?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient for an agent to know when and how to invoke the tool correctly. It does not explain what 'flag' represents, how 'approve' changes system state, or what happens after the operation.
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 the parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, which keeps this at baseline.
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 identifies the resource ('friend request') and implies handling, but the verb 'handle' is generic and does not specify the actual operation (approve, reject, modify). It distinguishes from sibling 'set_group_add_request' only by mentioning 'friend', but not from other friend-related 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. Sibling tools like 'set_group_add_request' exist, but the description does not explain that this tool is for friend requests specifically, nor does it state any conditions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.