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. It states the action ('resume') but doesn't explain what 'resume' means operationally (e.g., does it restart streaming, restore permissions, or something else?), what permissions are required, whether it's idempotent, or what happens on failure. The return value '请求ID' (request ID) is mentioned but not explained. Significant behavioral gaps exist.

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 clear sections for Args and Returns. However, the single-sentence purpose statement '恢复直播流' is somewhat terse and could benefit from slightly more context about what 'resume' entails. No wasted text, but slightly under-specified.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool. It doesn't explain the behavioral implications of 'resume' (e.g., side effects, error conditions), the meaning of the return value, or how this tool relates to siblings like 'forbid_live_stream'. For a tool that likely changes system state, this leaves critical gaps.

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 each parameter well-documented in the input schema (e.g., 'stream_name' has description '流名称。示例值：stream1'). The description lists the three parameters but adds no meaningful semantics beyond what the schema already provides. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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's purpose as '恢复直播流' (resume live stream), which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'resume_delay_live_stream' or 'forbid_live_stream', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific resume operation versus 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 prerequisites (e.g., the stream must be in a forbidden state), compare to sibling tools like 'resume_delay_live_stream', or indicate when this tool would be inappropriate. The agent receives no usage context.

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