Tencent Cloud Live MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the tool queries inferred stream events and lists parameters, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, whether there are rate limits, what happens if parameters are omitted, or how errors are handled. The description provides basic functional information but lacks crucial operational context.

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 efficiently structured with a brief purpose statement followed by parameter and return value documentation. While the Chinese text could be more concise, it follows a clear format with Args and Returns sections. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the initial purpose statement could be more informative.

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 query tool with 10 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'inferred stream events' are, what the EventList contains, how pagination works in practice, or what format the response takes. The lack of output schema means the description should explain return values more thoroughly, but it only lists names without context.

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%, meaning all parameters are well-documented in the input schema itself. The description lists parameters but adds minimal semantic value beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. It doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., how start_time and end_time work together) or provide usage examples. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 '查询推断流事件' (query inferred stream events), which provides a basic purpose but is vague. It doesn't clearly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'describe_live_stream_online_list' or 'describe_live_stream_state', nor does it specify what 'inferred stream events' actually means. The description lacks specificity about what resource is being queried beyond the general concept of stream events.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for usage, or comparisons with sibling tools like 'describe_live_stream_online_list' or 'describe_live_stream_state'. The agent receives no help in determining when this specific query tool is appropriate versus other describe tools in the system.

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