获取微博热搜榜。返回当前榜单条目，含排名、标题或关键词、热度值。做趋势信号、选题参考时用，适合定时轮询。单价¥0.2/次，仅成功调用计费，失败或空结果自动退回。
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": "weibo_hot_search"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| _token | No | 备用鉴权：fw_ 开头的 token。推荐改用 HTTP Header X-FW-Token。 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile: read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world. Beyond that, the description adds real context: the unit price ¥0.2 per call, charging only on success, and automatic refund on failure or empty results. That is uniquely useful for a polling agent deciding whether to retry, although it does not say how many entries are returned or how often the list can be polled.
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 terse sentences: purpose first, then return shape, then usage and billing. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information is 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?
With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned fields (rank, title/keyword, heat value), and it also states the cost model. Its only gap is the result size or pagination behavior, which is minor for a fixed, parameterless hot-list endpoint.
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?
There is only one optional _token parameter, and the schema already documents it fully, with 100% coverage and a recommendation to use the X-FW-Token header instead. The description adds no parameter guidance, so the baseline of 3 applies: the schema does all the work.
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?
Description uses a specific verb (获取) plus a specific resource (微博热搜榜), and it also states the return contents: rank, title/keyword, heat value. This distinguishes it from weibo_keyword_search, but the difference is only implied by the resource name; the description does not state it explicitly.
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?
Description gives clear use cases ('做趋势信号、选题参考') and a usage mode ('适合定时轮询'), so an agent knows when to call it. But it names no alternatives and states no exclusions, so it does not reach the explicit when-not/alternative level of 5.
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.