最新網友情報：官方消息、新聞、謠傳、展示影片、開箱、討論。
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "latest_toy_news"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints the content is community-sourced ('網友情報') but says nothing about ordering, freshness limits, item counts, pagination, or what a result looks like for a read tool with a 0%-documented parameter.
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?
It is a single short, front-loaded fragment with no wasted words, which is good. However, it is a bare noun phrase with no verb or sentence structure, so the reader must infer that this is a fetch operation.
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 output schema and no annotations, the description must explain return behavior, freshness semantics, and source reliability on its own. Instead it only lists categories, leaving what 'latest' means and how results are delivered undefined.
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 0%, but there is only one optional parameter and its enum values are self-describing; the description enumerates matching categories (official/news/rumor/video/unbox/discuss), which at least maps meaning to the filter. This is largely a restatement of the enum, so it adds only marginal value.
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 phrase '最新網友情報' (latest netizen info) conveys a retrieval intent, and the enumeration of categories clarifies breadth, but there is no clear verb+resource framing and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like list_meets or release_calendar. The listed categories largely restate the enum rather than define a distinct purpose.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_toy or search_toys. The agent is given no signal about when this tool is preferable to its siblings.
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.