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 states the tool returns '正在直播中的流列表' (list of live streams), which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't address critical behaviors like pagination handling (implied by page_num/page_size but not explained), rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or response format details. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 concise and well-structured: a brief purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. However, the Args section merely lists parameter names without adding meaningful context, and the Returns section is vague ('正在直播中的流列表' doesn't specify structure). It's efficient but could be more informative with less redundancy.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details (e.g., pagination mechanics, error handling), usage guidance relative to siblings, and specifics on the return value format. For a query tool with filtering and pagination, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly without additional 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with detailed parameter descriptions in the input schema (e.g., defaults, examples, constraints like page_size max 100). The tool description lists parameters in Args but adds minimal semantic value beyond restating names. It doesn't explain interactions between parameters (e.g., how app_name, domain_name, and stream_name filter results together) or provide usage examples. 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: '查询直播中的流' (query live streams). It specifies the resource (live streams) and verb (query/list), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'describe_live_stream_state' or 'describe_live_stream_event_list', which reduces clarity about when to choose this tool over those alternatives.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'describe_live_stream_state' (which might check individual stream status) or 'describe_live_stream_event_list' (which might list stream events), leaving the agent to guess based on names alone. There's no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.

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