获取微信视频号热榜；当前不支持翻页。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | 微信视频号热榜条目 | |
| points | Yes | 本次成功调用的积分消耗与调用完成时的账户积分余额。 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / properties / pointsAdded value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "description": "本次成功调用的积分消耗与调用完成时的账户积分余额。",
+ "properties": {
+ "balance": {
+ "description": "本次接口完成时看到的当前积分余额。",
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "cost": {
+ "description": "本次请求最终确认消耗的积分。",
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "integer"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "cost",
+ "balance"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Output schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "items"
-]New value: +[
+ "items",
+ "points"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds a valuable behavioral limitation not present in annotations: '当前不支持翻页' (currently does not support pagination). The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation, and the description is consistent with it. No contradiction detected.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core purpose and a key limitation. Every word earns its place, with no wasted text.
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?
This is a simple, no-parameter tool with an output schema available. The description covers what it does and a key limitation, and the output schema handles return values. No significant gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter semantics. No gaps exist.
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 the WeChat Channels hot list ('获取微信视频号热榜'), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like wechat_search_videos and wechat_get_video_detail_by_url by being the only one focused on the hot list.
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 retrieving the hot list, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. There is no mention of alternatives or scenarios where other tools would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.