open_cmcc_infoCheck ClawBot binding status to verify if your PushPlus account is linked, view the masked API key, and confirm the binding time for integration readiness.
GET /open/cmcc/info - 查询新消息ClawBot绑定状态。 请求参数: 无。 统一响应: code(数字,200成功), msg(字符串), data(业务数据)。 data: bound(0未绑定/1已绑定), apiKeyMasked(脱敏后的API Key), createTime(绑定时间)。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the HTTP method, response envelope (code/msg/data), and data field semantics including bound=0/1 and masked API key. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, error behavior beyond 200 success, or explicitly state that this is a read-only operation.
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 compact and well-structured: endpoint, no-parameter note, unified response envelope, and data fields. It is front-loaded with the purpose and contains no filler or redundant 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?
For a zero-parameter GET status query, the description is complete. There is no output schema, so the description appropriately explains the response envelope and the data fields an agent needs to interpret the result. No critical information appears missing 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?
The input schema is empty and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The description explicitly confirms '请求参数: 无' (no request parameters), which removes any ambiguity. With zero params, this meets the baseline-4 expectation.
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?
Description states a specific operation (GET) and resource (ClawBot binding status), with the title reinforcing '查询新消息ClawBot绑定状态'. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like open_cmcc_bind, open_cmcc_unbind, and open_cmcc_test, which are mutation/action tools rather than a status query.
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?
The intended use—querying binding status—is implied by the title and description, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool guidance is provided. An agent can infer the purpose, but the description does not actively route away from bind/unbind/test siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.