Tencent Cloud Live MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool queries information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns real-time or cached data, or handles errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 brief and structured with Args and Returns sections, making it easy to scan. However, it includes redundant information (e.g., '请求ID' - request ID is vague) and could be more front-loaded with key details. It's efficient but not perfectly optimized.

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 complexity of live streaming domains and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'DomainInfo' includes (e.g., status, settings, URLs) or the purpose of '请求ID', leaving the agent guessing about return values and operational context. This is inadequate for a tool in a domain with many siblings.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'domain_name' well-documented in the input schema (including an example). The description adds minimal value by restating the parameter name in Chinese without additional context, such as format constraints or domain types. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the tool '查询域名信息' (queries domain information), which provides a basic verb+resource combination. However, it lacks specificity about what type of domain information is retrieved (e.g., configuration, status, metadata) and doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'describe_live_domains' (plural) or 'describe_play_addr' (address description). The purpose is clear but vague in scope.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as whether the domain must be enabled or configured, or differentiate from sibling tools like 'describe_live_domains' for listing multiple domains. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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