获取知乎热榜。返回回答正文、赞同/评论/收藏数、作者信息、发布时间。做单条内容的互动量分析、素材入库或作为批量任务起点时用。单价¥0.1/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": "zhihu_hot_list"
}
}| 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 declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds billing behavior that no annotation carries: ¥0.1 per call, charged only on success, auto-refunded on failure or empty result, which tells the agent that retries are cheap and calling the tool is not a billing risk.
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?
Four short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence carries a distinct fact (returns, use cases, pricing). No filler or repetition.
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?
No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields (answer text, agree/comment/collect counts, author, publish time). It stops short of saying how many items the hot list returns or its ordering, but that is a minor gap for a zero-parameter tool.
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 parameter, and its schema description is 100% complete, including the X-FW-Token header alternative, so the schema carries the burden. The description adds nothing on parameters, which is acceptable at this coverage level and parameter count.
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 a specific verb and resource (获取知乎热榜) up front, which distinguishes it from the keyword-search and post-detail siblings at a glance. However, the second sentence pivots to per-answer fields (回答正文, 作者信息), which blurs the line with zhihu_post_detail and is not reconciled.
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?
It gives three concrete use contexts (互动量分析, 素材入库, 批量任务起点), which is more than most siblings. What it lacks is routing guidance: nothing says when to pick zhihu_post_detail or zhihu_keyword_search instead, and the annotation title '知乎详情' actively points toward the sibling.
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.