Skip to main content
Glama
xiaobenyang-com

Bilibili-Api

by xiaobenyang-com
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: get_user_info targets user data, get_video_info targets video metadata, and search_videos targets video discovery. There is no overlap in functionality, making tool selection unambiguous for an agent.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with 'get_' or 'search_' prefixes and snake_case formatting. This predictable naming scheme enhances readability and usability across the set.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 3 tools, the set feels thin for a Bilibili API server, which might be expected to handle more operations like comments, playlists, or uploads. However, it covers basic user, video, and search functions adequately for a minimal scope.

    Completeness3/5

    The tools provide read-only access to users, videos, and search, but lack CRUD operations (e.g., no create, update, or delete) or broader API coverage like comments or subscriptions. This limits agents to informational tasks without full lifecycle management.

  • Average 2.6/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior1/5

    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. However, it only states the basic action without any details on traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, response format, or error handling. For a search tool with no 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.

    Conciseness5/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Search for videos on Bilibili', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness1/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given the complexity of a search tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how results are structured, or any behavioral aspects like pagination or error cases. This leaves critical gaps for an AI agent to use the tool effectively.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters1/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the parameters (keyword, page, count) are documented in the schema. The description adds no information about these parameters, such as what 'keyword' should contain, how 'page' and 'count' affect pagination, or their default values. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose3/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description 'Search for videos on Bilibili' clearly states the action (search) and resource (videos on Bilibili), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what kind of search it performs (e.g., keyword-based, relevance ranking) and doesn't differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'get_video_info', which might retrieve specific videos rather than search.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines2/5

    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 scenarios like searching by keyword, pagination needs, or how it differs from sibling tools such as 'get_user_info' or 'get_video_info'. Without this context, users must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

  • Behavior2/5

    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. It states the action but doesn't cover key traits like whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the response format includes. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness5/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness2/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given the lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't provide enough context for an agent to effectively use the tool, missing details on parameters, behavior, and output, which are critical for a tool with one required parameter.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters2/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    The schema description coverage is 0%, and the description doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema. It doesn't explain what 'mid' represents (e.g., user ID), its format, or constraints, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose4/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('information about a Bilibili user'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_video_info' or 'search_videos' beyond specifying the resource type, missing explicit distinction.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines2/5

    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. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a user ID, and doesn't mention sibling tools or scenarios where other tools might be more appropriate.

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

  • Behavior2/5

    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. While 'Get detailed information' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, rate limits, what kind of information is returned, or error handling. The description is too vague for a tool with no annotation support.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness5/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple tool.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness2/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes, how to interpret the bvid parameter, or any behavioral aspects. For a tool with this complexity and lack of structured support, it should provide more context.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters3/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'Bilibili video' which hints that 'bvid' is a video identifier, but doesn't explain format, examples, or constraints. This adds minimal value beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for low coverage.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose4/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'detailed information about a Bilibili video', making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like get_user_info (user-focused) and search_videos (search-focused), though it doesn't explicitly mention this distinction in the text.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines2/5

    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 like search_videos or get_user_info. It doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

1777316659451907 MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

1777316659451907 MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/xiaobenyang-com/1777316659451907'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server