读取单条 X 帖子详情（含 views/媒体信息），接受帖子 URL 或数字 id。
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"url_or_id": "<url_or_id>"
},
"name": "get_post"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url_or_id | Yes | 帖子链接或 id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses return content ('含 views/媒体信息') and accepted input forms, and the verb '读取' implies a read-only operation, but it omits auth requirements, rate limits, error behavior, and explicit side-effect guarantees.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose and follows with input and return details, earning its place.
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 simple one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description covers purpose, accepted input, and returned facets. It lacks usage guidance and operational details, but those gaps are minor given the tool's simplicity.
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%, so the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description restates that it accepts a URL or numeric id but adds no format examples or constraints beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 a specific verb (读取) and resource (单条 X 帖子详情), with added scope (single post) and return facets (views/媒体信息). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from any sibling tool, so it falls 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not name any sibling tool or describe conditions that select this tool over search_x_news or others. The usage context is only implicit in the phrase '读取单条'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.