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 4/5 across 14 of 14 tools scored. Lowest: 3.2/5.
Tools have overlapping purposes (multiple ways to get video details, comments, user videos) but descriptions clearly differentiate by input method (URL vs. ID). A few tools like wechat_get_video_comments_by_url and wechat_get_video_comments_by_object_id could be confused, but overall distinct.
All tools follow a consistent wechat_verb_noun pattern, with optional _by_parameter suffix. Naming is uniform and predictable, making it easy for agents to understand the action and object.
14 tools is well-scoped for a WeChat Channels server, covering user info, videos, comments, search, hot list, and speech processing. Each tool serves a clear purpose without unnecessary bloat.
Covers core read operations and speech-to-text submission but lacks write operations (e.g., posting videos or comments) and some advanced features like follower data. Given platform restrictions, the surface is reasonably complete.
Available Tools
14 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_mp_article_detail_by_urlARead-onlyInspect
根据微信公众号文章链接或包含链接的分享文案获取文章详情和正文。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | 微信公众号文章 / WeChat Official Account article 链接，或包含该链接的分享文案；例如 https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/cyog0u9QpLFvdBsh9JR3_g。 |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| sn | Yes | 公众号文章 sn 标识；不可用时为空字符串 |
| biz | Yes | 公众号文章 biz 标识；不可用时为空字符串 |
| idx | Yes | 公众号文章 idx 标识；不可用时为空字符串 |
| mid | Yes | 公众号文章 mid 标识；不可用时为空字符串 |
| title | Yes | 公众号文章标题 |
| account | Yes | 公众号账号信息 |
| image_urls | Yes | 正文图片链接，按页面顺序返回 |
| source_url | Yes | 规范化后的公众号文章链接 |
| description | Yes | 文章摘要；不可用时为空字符串 |
| content_html | Yes | 正文 HTML 片段 |
| content_text | Yes | 正文纯文本，已去除标签并压缩空白 |
| publish_time | Yes | 文章发布时间，秒级 Unix 时间戳；当前不可用时为 null |
| cover_image_url | Yes | 文章封面图片链接；当前不可用时为 null |
| linked_articles | Yes | 正文内链公众号文章列表 |
| finder_video_cards | Yes | 正文内嵌视频号卡片列表 |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it accepts either a URL or a sharing text containing the link. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so 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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, no wasted words.
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 tool with one fully described parameter, annotations, and output schema exist, the description is sufficiently complete.
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 parameter description matching the tool description. The description does not add new semantic value 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 verb '获取' (get) and the resource '文章详情和正文' (article details and body) from a specific input type (link or sharing text). It distinguishes from sibling tools which focus on videos, hot search, or user info.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool or alternatives. The description only defines functionality without context for selection vs. siblings.
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 include readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description aligns with them by depicting a read operation. The description adds context beyond annotations by explaining that the tool parses the author from the URL before fetching the list, which is useful behavioral insight.
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 efficiently conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. However, it lacks structured elements like bullet points or subsections, which slightly reduces clarity.
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 (2 parameters, output schema present), the description adequately explains the tool's behavior and input requirements. It does not detail output, but the output schema covers that. The description is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to use the tool correctly.
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?
Input schema covers all parameters (100% coverage). The description does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema's descriptions, except for clarifying that the URL can be a link or a shared text. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.
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's purpose: given a WeChat video account video URL or shared text containing a URL, it parses the author and retrieves the user's published video list. The verb '获取' and resource '用户发布视频列表' are specific, and the tool is distinguished from siblings like 'wechat_get_user_posted_videos_by_user_id' which uses user 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 indicates when to use the tool (when you have a video URL or sharing text). No explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, but the context is clear and the sibling tools cover other scenarios.
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 provide readOnlyHint, so safety is clear. Description adds pagination behavior (page_token support), which annotations lack.
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 in Chinese, front-loaded with purpose, no unnecessary words.
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 read-only list tool with output schema, description adequately covers main function (get videos by user ID) and pagination. No missing 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?
Schema covers both parameters with detailed descriptions (100% coverage). Description only mentions pagination briefly, adding no extra 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 method ('by user ID'). Distinguishes from sibling tools like wechat_get_user_posted_videos_by_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?
Description implies use when user ID is available, but no explicit when-not-to-use or comparison with sibling tools like search or 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_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 |
| topic_tags | Yes | 作品文案中的话题标签；无话题时为空数组；每项只返回 name |
| 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 declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and scope. The description adds that the ID must come from search results, but provides no additional behavioral details like rate limits or response format. With annotations present, this is adequate.
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, well-structured sentence in Chinese. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no extraneous information. Every word is necessary.
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 single-parameter input, presence of output schema, and annotations covering read-only and open-world behavior, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly. It provides the key context about the parameter's origin.
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 encrypted_object_id is from search results and should be passed as-is if from search. This clarifies the parameter's origin and handling beyond the schema's type 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?
The description clearly states the action: '获取视频详情' (get video details) using the 'encrypted_object_id' from search results. It specifies the resource and distinguishes from sibling tools like wechat_get_video_detail_by_url by the input method.
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 context: when you have an encrypted_object_id from search results. While it doesn't explicitly state when-not to use or name alternatives, the sibling tool list makes the distinction clear.
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 |
| topic_tags | Yes | 作品文案中的话题标签；无话题时为空数组；每项只返回 name |
| 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 declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds no further behavioral context such as error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs. It adequately matches the annotations without contradiction.
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 the action, no wasted words. Efficiently communicates the tool's 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?
Given the existence of an output schema (handling return values) and comprehensive annotations, the description is sufficient for this simple tool. It could briefly mention that details are returned in structured format, but not necessary.
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 clear description of the 'url' parameter. The tool description essentially paraphrases the schema description, adding no new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides.
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 (视频详情/video details) and specifies input as a video link or shared text. It distinguishes from sibling tools like wechat_get_video_detail_by_encrypted_object_id that use a different identifier.
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 URL is available but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like wechat_get_video_detail_by_encrypted_object_id. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information 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_speech_text_jobARead-onlyInspect
查询微信视频号口播转文字任务状态；可选长轮询当前 job，不触发重处理。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | 口播转文字任务 ID。 | |
| wait_seconds | No | 可选长轮询等待秒数；0 表示只查询一次，最大 240 秒。 |
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。 |
| content_id | Yes | 平台内容 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_meta | Yes | 作品上下文信息，便于结合转写内容做口播分析。 |
| 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 indicate read-only and open-world. Description adds that long-polling does not cause reprocessing, which is valuable behavioral context beyond 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 concise sentences in Chinese, front-loaded with core purpose, no wasted words.
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?
With output schema present, return values need not be explained. Description covers purpose, polling behavior, and non-reprocessing. Minor omission: possible job statuses not mentioned, but acceptable for a simple query tool.
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. Description does not add additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 specifies the action ('查询任务状态') and the resource ('微信视频号口播转文字任务'). It distinguishes from sibling submit tools by focusing on status query.
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?
Provides context for use: optional long-polling and that it does not trigger reprocessing. However, no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools beyond inference from tool names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
wechat_search_videosARead-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）、time_descending（最新）、collect_count_descending（最热/最多收藏排序）。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?
The description adds the return format (list and page token) beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint). However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits or pagination behavior. The annotations already indicate safe read-only operation.
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, succinct sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and return value. It contains no unnecessary words and is well-structured for quick parsing.
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?
The description covers the essential functionality and return type. Although it omits details about optional filters (sort, duration), the input schema comprehensively documents those parameters. Given the presence of an output schema, this is sufficient.
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 each parameter is well-documented in the schema. The high-level description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline expectation.
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 searches for WeChat video account videos and returns a list and pagination token. It uses a specific verb-resource combination and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on getting details, comments, or user info.
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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., getting hot search, user videos). It lacks explicit context for when-not-to-use or mentions of alternative tools.
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 210 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。 |
| content_id | Yes | 平台内容 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_meta | Yes | 作品上下文信息，便于结合转写内容做口播分析。 |
| 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 provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses submission, wait time up to 210 seconds, and return of job_id with next query action. Lacks auth or permission notes, but sufficient for submission tool.
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 in Chinese conveys submit action, maximum wait, and conditional return. No wasted words; front-loads key action.
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?
With output schema present, description doesn't need detailed return format. It mentions job_id and next query action, which is adequate. Could be slightly improved by explicitly naming the query tool.
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 parameter description. Description adds extra context: 'if from search results, pass as is', which provides practical guidance 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 action (submit) and resource (video speech-to-text task) using encrypted_object_id. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the input type, but does not explicitly contrast with the URL-based sibling.
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 when encrypted_object_id is available but lacks explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does mention waiting behavior and follow-up action, which helps usage but not compared to siblings.
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 210 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。 |
| content_id | Yes | 平台内容 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_meta | Yes | 作品上下文信息，便于结合转写内容做口播分析。 |
| 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?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses the async nature (wait up to 210 seconds), the return of job_id upon incomplete, and the next query action. This provides sufficient transparency for an agent to handle the tool correctly.
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 concisely conveys the core action, waiting behavior, and response structure. Every part is necessary and 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, the description adequately covers the submission, wait, and polling logic. It could mention error conditions or prerequisites, but overall it is complete enough for effective use.
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 schema already provides a detailed description and example for the single parameter (video_url). The description adds no extra semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 specifies the action: submitting a speech-to-text task for a WeChat video channel video using a URL. It distinguishes from the sibling tool that uses encrypted object ID by the input parameter 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?
The description explains the async behavior with a wait time and polling mechanism, guiding when to use. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare with the sibling tool using encrypted object ID, leaving room for improvement.
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!