Reads Bilibili video metadata and part details, preserving the p parameter from the URL or using an explicit part override to select a specific video part.
读取视频元数据与分 P。URL 中的 p 会被保留；part 可显式覆盖。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| part | No | ||
| video | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description's additional value is the precedence rule (URL p kept unless part is given), which is real behavioral detail; it does not mention what happens on an invalid or unreachable video identifier, so it stops short of rich transparency.
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?
Two compact sentences with no filler, and the override/precedence information comes immediately after the resource statement. It is well front-loaded, though the second clause is terse enough that its referent (which p, which URL) needs a second read.
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?
There is no output schema, but the description names what comes back (metadata and分 P), and annotations carry the safety and idempotency profile, so the description is close to sufficient for a 2-parameter read tool. The remaining hole is the format of the required video argument, which an agent must guess.
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 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning – and it only partially compensates. It explains part as an explicit override of the URL's p value, but leaves video completely uncharacterized: nothing says whether it is a full URL, a BV id, or something else, despite a 2048-character cap that hints at URLs.
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?
A specific verb (读取, "read") plus a specific resource (视频元数据与分 P, "video metadata and parts"), so the agent knows the payload involves both metadata and per-part data. However, the very similar sibling bilibili_read_video is never mentioned, so the boundary between the two read tools has to be inferred rather than read off the description.
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 clause about the URL's p being preserved and part explicitly overriding it implies when to set part, which is genuinely useful usage context. Beyond that there is no stated when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and nothing routes the agent between this tool and bilibili_read_video or bilibili_search.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.