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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. '启用域名' implies a write/mutation operation (changing domain state to enabled), but it doesn't specify what 'enabling' actually does (e.g., makes domain available for live streaming, requires specific permissions, may have propagation delays). It mentions a return value ('请求ID' - request ID) which suggests an asynchronous operation, but doesn't explain what this ID is for or how to track completion. For a mutation tool with zero 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 brief (three lines) but poorly structured. The first line '启用域名' is under-informative, while the Args/Returns sections are formatted but add little beyond what's in the schema. The description feels incomplete rather than efficiently concise - it wastes the opportunity to provide meaningful context in its limited space.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'enabling' a live domain entails operationally, what state changes occur, potential side effects, or how to use the returned request ID. Given the sibling tools include both 'add_live_domain' and 'forbid_live_domain', the description should clarify this tool's specific role in the domain lifecycle management.

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 the parameter 'domain_name' well-documented in the schema (including example value and clear title). The description adds minimal value by labeling it '推流域名' (push streaming domain) which provides slightly more context than the schema's '域名名称' (domain name), but this is marginal. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does most of the work.

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 '启用域名' (Enable domain) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'enable_live_domain' in Chinese. While it indicates the action is enabling something related to domains, it doesn't specify what type of domain (live streaming domain) or what 'enabling' entails operationally. It fails to distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'add_live_domain' or 'forbid_live_domain' which also manipulate domains.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., domain must exist, be in a disabled state), nor does it differentiate from similar tools like 'add_live_domain' (create new) or 'forbid_live_domain' (disable). The agent receives no contextual cues about appropriate usage scenarios.

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