open_cmcc_unbindUnbind ClawBot from new message notifications to stop receiving PushPlus alerts. This high-risk action disables the connection and requires no parameters.
GET /open/cmcc/unbind - 高风险：解绑新消息ClawBot。 请求参数: 无。 统一响应: code(数字,200成功), msg(字符串), data(业务数据)。
| 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and only states 'high-risk unbind' plus the generic response format. It does not disclose side effects, irreversibility, prerequisites, or post-condition of the unbind 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 a single compact line that front-loads the endpoint and risk level, then covers parameters and response format with no filler.
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?
The operation is simple (no parameters) and the response format is described, which is adequate for invoking the endpoint. However, as a high-risk unbind operation with no annotations, it should explain what the unbind does and what happens after calling it.
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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is fully covered at 100%. The description explicitly states '请求参数: 无', which satisfies the baseline for a no-parameter tool.
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 clearly states the action (解绑/unbind) and resource (新消息ClawBot) with the endpoint and a high-risk flag. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from the sibling open_clawbot_unbind, which also appears to unbind a ClawBot.
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 call this tool versus alternatives such as open_cmcc_bind or open_clawbot_unbind. The 'high-risk' label is a warning, not usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.