Read and extract the full text content of a WeChat Official Account (微信公众号) article via ReadGZH (readgzh.site). Provide a WeChat article URL and get back the title, author, publish time, and full article text in Markdown format. The article will be automatically cached for future reads.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The full URL of the WeChat article, e.g. https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/xxxx |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses caching behavior and output format (Markdown). No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden, and it adequately covers the read-only nature and results.
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?
Three sentences efficiently convey purpose, procedure, and caching detail. The description is front-loaded and concise with no wasted words.
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains input and expected output, including caching. It lacks only potential error handling details.
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%, and the description adds an example URL and clarifies that the parameter is a WeChat article URL, adding meaningful context beyond the raw schema.
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 states the tool reads and extracts full text of a WeChat article, listing input and output specifics. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like readgzh.get or readgzh.search, which may have overlapping functionality.
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 by providing a URL but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions or prerequisites.
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.