SocialDataX 微信视频号 WeChat Channels MCP
Server Details
WeChat Channels hot search, video search/details, comments/replies, users, transcript.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.9/5 across 13 of 13 tools scored. Lowest: 3.2/5.
Each tool has a distinct purpose. While there are multiple ways to get video details or comments (by URL, by ID), they serve different input scenarios and are clearly differentiated. No two tools overlap in functionality.
All tools follow a consistent 'wechat_verb_noun' pattern with snake_case. Verbs like get, search, submit are used appropriately, and parameters are indicated clearly (e.g., by_user_id, by_url). No mixing of conventions.
13 tools cover the main data retrieval operations for a WeChat Channels server: search, user info, video details, comments, and speech-to-text. The count is well-scoped for the domain without being overwhelming or sparse.
The tool set covers essential read operations: search, user data, video details, comments (including replies), and speech-to-text. Missing features include pagination for hot search and more advanced user lookup (e.g., by handle). However, for typical data extraction needs, it is fairly complete.
Available Tools
13 toolswechat_get_hot_search_listARead-onlyInspect
获取微信视频号热榜；当前不支持翻页。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | 微信视频号热榜条目 |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds the explicit constraint that pagination is not supported, which is beyond annotations. No contradictions.
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 brief sentences; no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose.
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?
Tool is simple with no parameters and output schema present. Description covers purpose and a key limitation. Could mention the data source or update frequency, but sufficient for selection.
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?
No parameters (schema coverage 100%), so baseline of 4 is appropriate. Description adds no semantic info beyond schema, but none is needed.
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?
Description clearly states the verb 'get' and the resource 'hot list' (微信视频号热榜), distinguishing it from sibling tools that deal with users, videos, or comments.
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 description notes a limitation ('currently does not support pagination') but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied by the unique functionality.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
wechat_get_user_info_by_user_idARead-onlyInspect
根据微信视频号用户 ID 获取用户信息。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_id | Yes | 微信视频号用户 ID，例如 v2_demo@finder；只支持以 @finder 结尾的账号 ID；从视频详情、用户发布视频列表、评论或评论回复结果中的 author.user_id 或 reply_to_user_id 复制；如果不是 @finder，不要传。 |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| bio | Yes | 用户简介；不可用时为空字符串 |
| name | Yes | 用户昵称；不可用时为空字符串 |
| gender | Yes | 用户性别 |
| user_id | Yes | 微信视频号用户 ID；不可用时为空字符串 |
| location | Yes | 用户资料地区；没有资料地区时为空字符串 |
| avatar_url | Yes | 用户头像链接；当前不可用时为 null |
| ip_location | Yes | 用户 IP 属地；没有 IP 属地时为空字符串 |
| original_content_count | Yes | 原创内容数量 |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating safe read operation. Description does not add behavioral context beyond this, such as whether authorization is needed or what fields are included.
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?
Single sentence, straight to the point, no redundant information. Perfectly concise for a simple tool.
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 read-only tool with one well-documented parameter and an output schema, the description is largely complete. Minor gap: no mention of typical output fields, but output schema compensates.
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 coverage is 100% with a detailed parameter description (format, source, validation). The tool description does not add new meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score applies.
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?
Description clearly states the verb '获取' (get) and resource '用户信息' (user info) via '用户 ID' (user ID). It distinctly differentiates from siblings like wechat_get_user_posted_videos_by_user_id which also uses user_id but returns videos.
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?
Description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage context is implied by the tool name and description, but no exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
wechat_get_user_posted_videos_by_urlARead-onlyInspect
根据微信视频号视频链接或分享文案中包含的视频链接，解析作者后获取用户发布视频列表。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | 微信视频号视频链接，或包含该链接的分享文案；例如 https://weixin.qq.com/sph/ANxgB9MB8i，或“帮我看下这个视频 https://weixin.qq.com/sph/ANxgB9MB8i”。 | |
| page_token | No | 微信视频号用户发布视频列表分页令牌；首次请求留空，继续翻页时必须将上一次返回的完整 next_page_token 原样传入，作为 page_token 使用；只能用于同一微信视频号用户发布视频分页链路；不得修改、截断、缩写、脱敏、掩码、省略、规范化、重组或自行生成，不得用省略号替换中间内容。 |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | 当前页用户发布视频列表 |
| next_page_token | Yes | 微信视频号用户发布视频列表分页令牌；首次请求留空，继续翻页时必须将上一次返回的完整 next_page_token 原样传入，作为 page_token 使用；只能用于同一微信视频号用户发布视频分页链路；不得修改、截断、缩写、脱敏、掩码、省略、规范化、重组或自行生成，不得用省略号替换中间内容。 |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that the tool parses the author from the URL, which is behavioral context. No contradictions. Could elaborate on the return behavior but sufficient.
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?
Single sentence is concise, but the Chinese phrasing is somewhat long. Could be broken into two sentences for clarity. Still adequately structured.
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?
Given the presence of output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential behavior and parameters completely. No missing aspects.
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 coverage is 100%. The description adds value for the page_token parameter with detailed instructions on not modifying it. The url parameter is minimally described but clear.
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 explicitly states that the tool parses the author from a WeChat video URL and retrieves the user's published video list. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools that use user ID or other criteria.
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 description implies usage when a video URL is available, but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide when-not scenarios or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
wechat_get_user_posted_videos_by_user_idARead-onlyInspect
根据微信视频号用户 ID 获取用户发布视频列表，支持 page_token 翻页。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_id | Yes | 微信视频号用户 ID，例如 v2_demo@finder；只支持以 @finder 结尾的账号 ID；从视频详情、用户发布视频列表、评论或评论回复结果中的 author.user_id 或 reply_to_user_id 复制；如果不是 @finder，不要传。 | |
| page_token | No | 微信视频号用户发布视频列表分页令牌；首次请求留空，继续翻页时必须将上一次返回的完整 next_page_token 原样传入，作为 page_token 使用；只能用于同一微信视频号用户发布视频分页链路；不得修改、截断、缩写、脱敏、掩码、省略、规范化、重组或自行生成，不得用省略号替换中间内容。 |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | 当前页用户发布视频列表 |
| next_page_token | Yes | 微信视频号用户发布视频列表分页令牌；首次请求留空，继续翻页时必须将上一次返回的完整 next_page_token 原样传入，作为 page_token 使用；只能用于同一微信视频号用户发布视频分页链路；不得修改、截断、缩写、脱敏、掩码、省略、规范化、重组或自行生成，不得用省略号替换中间内容。 |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; description adds pagination behavior but no further behavioral traits (e.g., auth requirements, rate limits). Adequate but not enhanced.
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?
Single sentence, directly to the point, front-loaded with purpose. No superfluous information.
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?
Tool goals are simple; output schema exists, so return values are covered. Description, combined with annotations and schema, fully addresses the tool's purpose and behavior.
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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for both parameters. Description only reiterates pagination, adding no new meaning beyond schema.
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?
Description clearly states verb (获取), resource (用户发布视频列表), and scope (by user ID). Distinguishes from sibling tools like wechat_get_user_posted_videos_by_url by specifying the input type.
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?
Description implies usage context (when user ID is available) but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool, nor reference alternatives. Lacks exclusionary guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
wechat_get_video_comment_replies_by_comment_idBRead-onlyInspect
根据微信视频号一级评论 ID 获取评论回复。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| object_id | Yes | 微信视频号视频的 object_id，例如 14882122090270235141；获取评论时请与同一条视频的 object_nonce_id 一起原样传入。 | |
| comment_id | Yes | 微信视频号一级评论 ID，例如 14941641522352032263；从一级评论结果 items[].comment_id 复制，用于获取该评论下的回复；不要传回复项的 comment_id。 | |
| page_token | No | 评论回复分页令牌；首次请求留空，继续翻页时必须将上一页返回的完整 next_page_token 原样传回；只能用于同一微信视频号、同一一级评论的回复分页链路。 | |
| object_nonce_id | Yes | 微信视频号视频的 object_nonce_id，例如 12801331239707625908_0_39_0_0；获取评论时请与同一条视频的 object_id 一起原样传入。 |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | 当前页评论回复列表；过滤后可能为空数组 |
| next_page_token | Yes | 下一页不透明分页令牌；为空表示没有更多评论回复。继续翻页时必须将返回的完整 next_page_token 原样作为 page_token 传回；next_page_token 只能用于同一微信视频号、同一一级评论的回复分页链路；不得修改、截断、缩写、脱敏、掩码、省略、规范化、重组或自行生成，不得用省略号替换中间内容。 |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not add behavioral context beyond the annotations. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description only restates the purpose. It fails to mention that the tool uses pagination (implied by page_token in schema), rate limits, or that replies are for a specific comment.
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 concise sentence that gets straight to the point. It is not verbose but could benefit from additional context (e.g., mentioning pagination). However, it earns a 4 for being efficient and front-loaded without unnecessary information.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, output schema exists, pagination via page_token), the description is minimally complete. It does not explain the return value structure (though output schema may cover it) or explicitly mention pagination behavior. With good parameter documentation in the schema, a score of 3 is fair.
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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions (including formats and examples). The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond restating the required comment_id. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already handles parameter documentation.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves comment replies using a first-level comment ID from WeChat video channel. It specifies the resource (comment replies) and the key parameter (comment ID), distinguishing it from sibling tools like wechat_get_video_comments_by_object_id which retrieves top-level comments.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use the reply retrieval versus top-level comment retrieval. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a comment ID from a previous step) or scenarios where it should not be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
wechat_get_video_comments_by_object_idARead-onlyInspect
根据微信视频号详情返回的 object_id 和 object_nonce_id 获取评论列表。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| object_id | Yes | 微信视频号视频的 object_id，例如 14882122090270235141；获取评论时请与同一条视频的 object_nonce_id 一起原样传入。 | |
| page_token | No | 评论分页令牌；首次请求留空，继续翻页时必须将上一页返回的完整 next_page_token 原样传回。 | |
| object_nonce_id | Yes | 微信视频号视频的 object_nonce_id，例如 12801331239707625908_0_39_0_0；获取评论时请与同一条视频的 object_id 一起原样传入。 |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | 当前页评论列表；过滤后可能为空数组 |
| comment_count | Yes | 评论总数 |
| next_page_token | Yes | 下一页不透明分页令牌；为空表示没有更多评论。继续翻页时必须将返回的完整 next_page_token 原样作为 page_token 传回；next_page_token 只能用于同一微信视频号评论分页链路；不得修改、截断、缩写、脱敏、掩码、省略、规范化、重组或自行生成，不得用省略号替换中间内容。 |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description's minimal behavioral context (just 'get comment list') is acceptable. It does not add details about pagination or error handling but does not contradict annotations.
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?
Single sentence that directly states the purpose and key parameters. No extraneous information, well front-loaded.
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?
Given the presence of an output schema and clear parameter descriptions, the description is largely complete. It could mention pagination behavior, but the page_token parameter implies it, so it's adequate.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying that the two IDs come from video details, which is not in the schema descriptions. This provides context for where to obtain the parameters.
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 clearly states the tool fetches a comment list using object_id and object_nonce_id from WeChat video details. It differentiates from sibling wechat_get_video_comments_by_url which uses URL instead.
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 description implies that this tool is used when object_id and object_nonce_id are available, contrasting with the URL-based sibling. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond the sibling context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
wechat_get_video_comments_by_urlARead-onlyInspect
根据微信视频号视频链接或包含链接的分享文案获取评论列表。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | 微信视频号视频链接，或包含该链接的分享文案；例如 https://weixin.qq.com/sph/ANxgB9MB8i，或“帮我看下这个视频 https://weixin.qq.com/sph/ANxgB9MB8i”。 | |
| page_token | No | 评论分页令牌；首次请求留空，继续翻页时必须将上一页返回的完整 next_page_token 原样传回。 |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | 当前页评论列表；过滤后可能为空数组 |
| comment_count | Yes | 评论总数 |
| next_page_token | Yes | 下一页不透明分页令牌；为空表示没有更多评论。继续翻页时必须将返回的完整 next_page_token 原样作为 page_token 传回；next_page_token 只能用于同一微信视频号评论分页链路；不得修改、截断、缩写、脱敏、掩码、省略、规范化、重组或自行生成，不得用省略号替换中间内容。 |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and description adds minimal extra behavioral context beyond the read-only nature.
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?
Single clear sentence in Chinese, efficient but could benefit from more structure or bullet points.
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?
Given simple tool with output schema, description covers key aspects: input format and pagination.
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 coverage is 100%, and description adds useful examples for url parameter and explains pagination with page_token.
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?
Description clearly states the tool retrieves comments for a WeChat video based on its URL or shared text. It distinguishes from sibling tools that use object IDs.
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 context is implied (use URL vs. object ID) but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
wechat_get_video_detail_by_encrypted_object_idARead-onlyInspect
根据微信视频号搜索结果返回的 encrypted_object_id 获取视频详情。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| encrypted_object_id | Yes | 微信视频号搜索结果返回的 encrypted_object_id；如果来自搜索结果，请原样传入。 |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| video | Yes | 视频资源信息；当前不可用时为 null |
| author | Yes | 作者信息 |
| images | Yes | 图文作品按顺序返回图片资源；视频作品为空数组 |
| object_id | Yes | 微信视频号详情对象 ID；不可用时为空字符串 |
| like_count | Yes | 点赞数 |
| description | Yes | 作品描述；不可用时为空字符串 |
| ip_location | Yes | 视频发布时的 IP 属地；没有 IP 属地时为空字符串 |
| share_count | Yes | 转发/分享数 |
| content_type | Yes | 内容类型；视频返回 video，图文返回 image |
| publish_time | Yes | 发布时间，秒级 Unix 时间戳 |
| collect_count | Yes | 收藏数 |
| comment_count | Yes | 评论数 |
| cover_image_url | Yes | 封面图或图文首图缩略资源链接；当前不可用时为 null |
| object_nonce_id | Yes | 微信视频号对象 nonce ID；后续评论等能力需要复用时原样保留 |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, covering safety and output variability. Description adds no further behavioral details (e.g., rate limits, error conditions) but does not contradict annotations.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with purpose, no extraneous words. Every word contributes to understanding.
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?
Given the simple one-parameter input and presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently indicates where the input comes from. It could mention the need to first call wechat_search_videos, but that is implicit.
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 coverage is 100% with a description of the encrypted_object_id. The tool description echoes the same context ('from search results'), adding no new information beyond the schema.
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?
Description clearly states the tool retrieves video details using encrypted_object_id from search results. The verb '获取' (get) and resource '视频详情' (video details) are specific. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like wechat_get_video_detail_by_url, but could be more explicit.
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?
Description indicates the input comes from search results, implying a prerequisite step. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, nor mention of alternatives such as wechat_get_video_detail_by_url.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
wechat_get_video_detail_by_urlARead-onlyInspect
根据微信视频号视频链接或包含链接的分享文案获取视频详情。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | 微信视频号视频链接，或包含该链接的分享文案；例如 https://weixin.qq.com/sph/ANxgB9MB8i，或“帮我看下这个视频 https://weixin.qq.com/sph/ANxgB9MB8i”。 |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| video | Yes | 视频资源信息；当前不可用时为 null |
| author | Yes | 作者信息 |
| images | Yes | 图文作品按顺序返回图片资源；视频作品为空数组 |
| object_id | Yes | 微信视频号详情对象 ID；不可用时为空字符串 |
| like_count | Yes | 点赞数 |
| description | Yes | 作品描述；不可用时为空字符串 |
| ip_location | Yes | 视频发布时的 IP 属地；没有 IP 属地时为空字符串 |
| share_count | Yes | 转发/分享数 |
| content_type | Yes | 内容类型；视频返回 video，图文返回 image |
| publish_time | Yes | 发布时间，秒级 Unix 时间戳 |
| collect_count | Yes | 收藏数 |
| comment_count | Yes | 评论数 |
| cover_image_url | Yes | 封面图或图文首图缩略资源链接；当前不可用时为 null |
| object_nonce_id | Yes | 微信视频号对象 nonce ID；后续评论等能力需要复用时原样保留 |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only (readOnlyHint: true) and open-world (openWorldHint: true). The description adds that this tool gets video details, consistent with annotations. No contradictions; the description reinforces the read-only nature.
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 concise—a single sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose and how to use the parameter. No wasted words, front-loaded with action and resource.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, full schema coverage, annotations, and output schema present), the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the key usage pattern, though it could briefly mention the output type (e.g., video details).
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 single parameter 'url' is fully described in both the schema (100% coverage) and the description, which clarifies that it can be a direct link or shared text containing the link, adding meaningful usage context beyond the schema.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves video details from a WeChat video URL or shared text containing the URL, which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like wechat_get_video_detail_by_encrypted_object_id.
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 description explains how to use the URL parameter (direct link or shared text) and implicitly suggests when to use this tool (when you have a video URL). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the sibling list provides context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
wechat_get_video_speech_text_jobARead-onlyInspect
查询微信视频号口播转文字任务状态；只查询当前 job，不触发重处理或长等待。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | 口播转文字任务 ID。 |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| error | Yes | 失败或过期时的稳定错误结构；非终态或成功时为 null。 |
| job_id | Yes | 任务 ID。 |
| status | Yes | 任务状态。 |
| message | Yes | 面向用户/AI 的状态说明。 |
| platform | Yes | 任务所属平台。 |
| source_id | Yes | 任务来源 ID。 |
| transcript | Yes | 成功时的口播转文字结果；非终态或失败时为 null。 |
| is_terminal | Yes | 是否已终态。 |
| next_action | Yes | 非终态时建议的下一步查询动作。 |
| content_type | Yes | 内容类型。 |
| next_poll_after_seconds | Yes | 建议下次查询前等待的秒数；非终态时可用。 |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. Description adds specific behavioral constraints: no reprocessing or long waits, which enhances understanding beyond annotations. Still, the core safety profile is already covered by annotations.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Every part is necessary and there is no redundant or extraneous information. Highly efficient.
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?
Given the existence of an output schema (not shown) and the sibling tools, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's role. It mentions what it does not do, which aids decision-making. A minor gap is the lack of explicit link to the submit tools, but the sibling list compensates.
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 single parameter job_id has a description in the input schema (100% coverage). The description does not add any additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.
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 clearly states it queries the status of a WeChat video voice-to-text task, using specific verbs (查询) and a resource (任务状态). It distinguishes from sibling tools that submit jobs, making the purpose unambiguous.
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?
Description indicates it only queries the current job without triggering reprocessing, providing clear usage context. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the sibling tools (submit) imply when not to use it. A slight gap in explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
wechat_search_videosBRead-onlyInspect
搜索微信视频号视频，返回视频列表和下一页分页令牌。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| keyword | Yes | 微信视频号搜索关键词，例如 露营、周末带娃；不要传链接或分页 token。 | |
| sort_type | No | 搜索排序方式，可选：all（不限，默认）、latest（最新）、popular（最热）。如无明确排序需求，保持 all。 | all |
| page_token | No | page_token 是不透明分页令牌。首次请求留空；继续翻页时必须将上一次返回的完整 next_page_token 原样传入，作为 page_token 使用；只能用于同一微信视频号搜索分页链路、同一关键词和同一筛选条件的下一页，不能跨能力、关键词或筛选条件复用；不得修改、截断、缩写、脱敏、掩码、省略、规范化、重组或自行生成，不得用省略号替换中间内容。 | |
| duration_range | No | 视频时长筛选，可选：all（不限，默认）、under_5_min（5 分钟以下）、between_5_and_20_min（5-20 分钟）、over_20_min（20 分钟以上）。如无明确筛选需求，保持 all。 | all |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | 当前页搜索结果中的视频列表，已过滤直播、合集和相关搜索卡片；当前页过滤后可能为空数组 |
| next_page_token | Yes | 下一页不透明分页令牌；为空表示没有更多结果。继续翻页时必须将返回的完整 next_page_token 原样作为 page_token 传回；next_page_token 只能用于同一微信视频号搜索分页链路；不得修改、截断、缩写、脱敏、掩码、省略、规范化、重组或自行生成，不得用省略号替换中间内容。 |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe read operation with variable results. The description is consistent with these annotations and does not contradict them. It adds no additional behavioral insight beyond what is provided by annotations.
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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It avoids unnecessary words, but could be slightly more detailed to improve usability without sacrificing brevity.
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?
Given that an output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description is minimally adequate but lacks context about prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases. It does not explain pagination behavior or search scope, though some of this is in the schema parameter descriptions.
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 input schema fully documents each parameter. The tool description does not add any extra meaning or context about parameters beyond what is already in the schema. Baseline of 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 clearly states the verb '搜索' (search) and the resource '微信视频号视频' (WeChat video account videos), and specifies the output: video list and pagination token. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like user-specific or comment retrieval tools, though it does not explicitly mention that it is a general keyword search.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings, no exclusion criteria, and no context about appropriate usage scenarios. It simply states what the tool does without any 'when to use' or 'when not to use' information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
wechat_submit_video_speech_text_by_encrypted_object_idAInspect
根据微信视频号 encrypted_object_id 提交视频口播转文字任务；提交完成后最多短等 15 秒，未完成时返回 job_id 和下一步查询动作。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| encrypted_object_id | Yes | 微信视频号搜索结果返回的 encrypted_object_id；如果来自搜索结果，请原样传入。 |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| error | Yes | 失败或过期时的稳定错误结构；非终态或成功时为 null。 |
| job_id | Yes | 任务 ID。 |
| status | Yes | 任务状态。 |
| message | Yes | 面向用户/AI 的状态说明。 |
| platform | Yes | 任务所属平台。 |
| source_id | Yes | 任务来源 ID。 |
| transcript | Yes | 成功时的口播转文字结果；非终态或失败时为 null。 |
| is_terminal | Yes | 是否已终态。 |
| next_action | Yes | 非终态时建议的下一步查询动作。 |
| content_type | Yes | 内容类型。 |
| next_poll_after_seconds | Yes | 建议下次查询前等待的秒数；非终态时可用。 |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Despite no annotations, the description discloses the synchronous wait of up to 15 seconds and the async fallback with job_id and next query action. It omits details about error handling or prerequisites but provides essential behavioral context.
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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action and contains no superfluous words. It efficiently conveys the purpose and key behavioral points.
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?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the submission flow and return values (job_id, next action). It lacks some detail on error cases but is adequate for 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 coverage is 100% with the parameter description already detailing the source and usage. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema, meeting the baseline.
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 clearly states the tool submits a video speech-to-text task using encrypted_object_id, which is a specific verb and resource. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like wechat_submit_video_speech_text_by_video_url and wechat_get_video_speech_text_job.
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 description implies usage when the user has an encrypted_object_id from search results, but does not explicitly exclude when to use the URL-based sibling tool. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
wechat_submit_video_speech_text_by_video_urlAInspect
提交微信视频号视频口播转文字任务；提交完成后最多短等 15 秒，未完成时返回 job_id 和下一步查询动作。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| video_url | Yes | 微信视频号视频链接，或包含该链接的分享文案；例如 https://weixin.qq.com/sph/ANxgB9MB8i，或“帮我看下这个视频 https://weixin.qq.com/sph/ANxgB9MB8i”。 |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| error | Yes | 失败或过期时的稳定错误结构；非终态或成功时为 null。 |
| job_id | Yes | 任务 ID。 |
| status | Yes | 任务状态。 |
| message | Yes | 面向用户/AI 的状态说明。 |
| platform | Yes | 任务所属平台。 |
| source_id | Yes | 任务来源 ID。 |
| transcript | Yes | 成功时的口播转文字结果；非终态或失败时为 null。 |
| is_terminal | Yes | 是否已终态。 |
| next_action | Yes | 非终态时建议的下一步查询动作。 |
| content_type | Yes | 内容类型。 |
| next_poll_after_seconds | Yes | 建议下次查询前等待的秒数；非终态时可用。 |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is async, with a max 15-second wait, and returns a job_id if not completed. However, it does not detail error scenarios or what happens if the task completes within 15 seconds.
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 two sentences in Chinese, front-loaded with the main action and then the behavioral detail. Every sentence provides value without redundancy.
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 submission tool with one parameter and an output schema (not shown), the description covers the task and async behavior. It mentions 'next query action,' implying polling, but does not explicitly link to the sibling tool wechat_get_video_speech_text_job for retrieval.
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 input schema already provides a detailed description for the single parameter video_url. The tool description adds no additional semantic information beyond what is in the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
Description clearly states the tool submits a WeChat video speech-to-text task using a video URL. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling wechat_submit_video_speech_text_by_encrypted_object_id, which uses an encrypted object ID instead of a URL.
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 description implies usage for submitting a speech-to-text job, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like the encrypted object ID variant. It mentions the async behavior and polling hint, but no clear when-not or explicit alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!