open_qqbot_unbindGET /open/qqBot/unbind - 高风险：解绑 QQ 机器人。 请求(url): botAppId(可选,不填解绑官方机器人)。解绑默认机器人后会自动把其他已绑定机器人设为默认。 统一响应: code(数字,200成功), msg(字符串), data(业务数据)。
GET /open/qqBot/unbind - 高风险：解绑 QQ 机器人。 请求(url): botAppId(可选,不填解绑官方机器人)。解绑默认机器人后会自动把其他已绑定机器人设为默认。 统一响应: code(数字,200成功), msg(字符串), data(业务数据)。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| botAppId | No | 要解绑的机器人appId，不填解绑官方机器人 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / botAppIdAdded value: +{
+ "description": "要解绑的机器人appId，不填解绑官方机器人",
+ "type": "string"
+}v1.0.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does include real behavioral context: the '高风险' risk label, the side effect that unbinding the default bot auto-promotes another bound bot to default, and the response envelope (code/msg/data). It still omits authorization requirements and whether the operation is reversible.
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?
Compact and front-loaded, leading with the risk level and action before the parameter and response notes. The run-on formatting and generic '统一响应' boilerplate are slightly noisy but each clause carries 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 single-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the essentials: risk level, parameter optionality, the default-bot reassignment side effect, and the response shape. The missing pieces (permissions/auth requirements, irreversibility, sibling disambiguation) are the main gaps.
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 schema already documents botAppId and its '不填解绑官方机器人' semantics; the description merely restates this. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond it.
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?
Names a specific verb+resource ('解绑 QQ 机器人') and includes the endpoint path 'GET /open/qqBot/unbind', so the operation is unambiguous. However, it gives no differentiation from close siblings like open_qqbot_delete or open_clawbot_unbind, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool.
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?
It discloses the conditional behavior of the sole parameter ('botAppId 可选, 不填解绑官方机器人'), which implicitly tells the agent when to omit it. But there is no guidance on when to choose unbind over sibling tools such as open_qqbot_delete or open_clawbot_unbind, and no stated prerequisites or permissions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.