List recently cached WeChat articles via ReadGZH. Returns titles, authors, and links. Useful for browsing what articles have been previously read and cached.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of articles to return (default 10, max 50) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but description states it returns titles, authors, and links, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly mention lack of side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits.
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, no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose, followed by useful context. Could be slightly more structured but effective.
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 list tool, it covers key aspects: what it does, what it returns (titles, authors, links), and the limit parameter. No output schema, but return value hint is provided. Missing details on recency definition but acceptable.
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% for the single 'limit' parameter, with description in schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema 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?
Clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'recently cached WeChat articles', distinguishing it from sibling tools like readgzh.get (specific article), readgzh.read (content), and readgzh.search (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?
Indicates it's useful for browsing previously read and cached articles, providing clear context for when to use this tool over alternatives. Lacks explicit exclusions but suffices.
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.