获取微博热搜列表；只返回 items，当前不支持翻页。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | 微博热搜条目列表。 | |
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds important behavioral context: it only returns items and does not support pagination. These details are not covered by the annotations and are valuable for the agent.
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 front-loads the purpose and mentions the two key limitations. Every element earns its place with no filler.
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 no parameters and an output schema present, the description covers all essential aspects: the action, the return shape, and the pagination limitation. It is fully sufficient for a simple read-only list 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?
The tool has zero parameters, and with schema description coverage at 100%, there are no parameters to describe. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter information.
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 '获取微博热搜列表' (Get Weibo hot search list), using a specific verb and resource. This tool is distinct from all sibling tools, which focus on individual posts, 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 explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. Its unique scope implies usage, but the lack of explicit guidance leaves it at the 'implied' level.
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.