Samples frames from a Bilibili video at specified or default timestamps (10%, 50%, 90%) and returns screenshots with actual time points, up to six frames.
在 B 站播放器采样画面，返回截图和实际时间点。默认采样 10%、50%、90%；最多 6 帧。采样不代表逐帧看过全片。会打开目标视频页面。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| part | No | ||
| times | No | ||
| video | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive semantics. The description adds real value beyond them: it discloses the side effect of opening the target video page in a browser, the default sampling positions (10%/50%/90%), the 6-frame ceiling, and the epistemic limit of the result.
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?
Four short sentences, front-loaded with the return value and defaults. Every sentence carries information; the "not frame-by-frame" caveat earns its place by preventing overclaiming, though the phrasing is slightly repetitive with the default-sampling sentence.
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?
No output schema exists, but the description does state what comes back (screenshots and real timestamps). For a browser-driving, open-world tool it omits prerequisites such as authentication (a sibling auth-status tool exists) and expected latency, and leaves two parameters undocumented.
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 must compensate. It explains the `times` parameter well (defaults and max 6 frames), but leaves `video` (URL vs BV/av id) and `part` (multi-part index) undefined in both schema and description.
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?
States a concrete verb+resource pair: sampling frames from the Bilibili player and returning screenshots plus actual timestamps. This is clearly distinct from sibling tools like bilibili_read_video, though it never names an alternative explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
Usage is implied (visual verification of a video) but there is no explicit "use this when / use X instead" guidance against bilibili_read_video or bilibili_get_video. The caveat that sampling is not equivalent to watching the whole video is a useful interpretation constraint but is not routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.