USTC BB MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

bb_status

Idempotent

Check the Blackboard session and attempt one automatic re-login if expired. Returns CLI guidance when manual authentication is required.

Instructions

检查 BB 会话；失效时尝试重新登录一次，需要人工认证时返回 CLI 操作提示。

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "bb_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	No
`data`	No
`error`	No
`message`	Yes
`complete`	No
`warnings`	No
`checked_at`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations mark readOnlyHint=false, and the description explains why: the tool may attempt one re-login, which accounts for the non-read-only side effect. It also discloses the failure mode (returns CLI operation hints when human authentication is required), which annotations cannot convey. It stops short of saying what the returned session state looks like, though an output schema exists to cover that.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single compact sentence, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the two conditional behaviors. Every clause carries distinct information: check, retry once, and manual-auth reporting.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter session check with a declared output schema and supplied annotations, the description covers the essential behavior including the fallback and manual-auth path. Minor gap: it does not state whether the description's retry is a hard retry of stored credentials or a fresh auth attempt, which matters for an agent interpreting a failure result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to get wrong; baseline 4 applies. Nothing in the description conflicts with the empty schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("检查 BB 会话" — check the BB session) and adds the two-step behavior that follows. It is distinguishable from bb_login because it is a status check that only falls back to a login attempt on failure.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage context — check session validity before other calls, and expect a manual-auth fallback — but never explicitly states when to prefer this over bb_login or what to do if the CLI prompt is returned. Guidance is inferable rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server