Get a cached WeChat article by its short slug/URL path via ReadGZH. Use when you have a slug like 'minicpm-o-4-5' from a previous read.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The article slug, e.g. 'minicpm-o-4-5' |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It only mentions 'cached' to indicate source, but does not disclose what happens on missing slug, required permissions, rate limits, or return format. Lack of output schema further reduces transparency.
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 sentences with zero wasted words. The first states the action, the second provides usage context. Well-structured 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 tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not describe the return value structure or error scenarios, which would be helpful for an agent.
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%, but the description adds value by explaining the slug as a 'short slug/URL path' and providing an example ('minicpm-o-4-5'). This clarifies the parameter beyond the schema's minimal 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 'get a cached WeChat article by its short slug/URL path', specifying verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'cached' and 'slug', but does not explicitly contrast with other tools like readgzh.list or readgzh.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 gives explicit guidance: 'Use when you have a slug ... from a previous read.' This tells when to use the tool, but does not discuss when not to use it or alternative tools.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: get by slug, list recent, list by account, read by URL, and search by keyword. The descriptions explicitly clarify when to use each, with no overlapping boundaries.
All tool names are simple, lowercase verbs or verb phrases (get, list, list_by_account, read, search) following a consistent pattern. No mixed conventions or vague names.
Five tools is well-scoped for a focused server that caches and retrieves WeChat articles. Each tool covers a distinct need without redundancy or excess.
The tool surface covers all core discovery and reading workflows: browsing recent articles, searching by keyword, filtering by account, reading by URL, and retrieving cached articles by slug. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.