list_platforms列出所有支持的热搜平台及其显示名称。
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_platforms"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / titleRemoved value: -"list_platformsArguments"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose that results include display names alongside platforms. It omits other behavioral traits such as ordering, whether the list is stable/complete, or whether returned identifiers are the accepted inputs elsewhere. For a zero-parameter read-only enumerator the burden is light, so this is adequate rather than thorough.
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?
A single short sentence with no filler, and the key information (what is listed, and that display names are included) is front-loaded. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, and with zero parameters there is little else to document. The definition is sufficient to invoke this tool correctly, with only the missing link to the sibling tool's workflow keeping it from a 5.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for. The description correctly describes an unfiltered full enumeration, matching the empty input object.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ("list all supported hot-search platforms") plus the payload detail "and their display names," so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not, however, contrast itself with the sibling query_hot_trending or say how the platform identifiers relate to that tool's inputs.
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 only implied: the definition is phrased as an enumeration, which suggests it is a discovery call before querying trends, but no explicit when-to-use, ordering, or "call this first" guidance is stated. There are no warnings or exclusions either, so the agent must infer the workflow.
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.