获取活动的"卡片"数据（C 端工具包核心）。
当用户想直接看到某活动的小程序卡片（标题 + 封面 + 时间地点 + 价格 + 报名链接）
时调用此工具。返回的卡片包含：
- url_link: 小程序 URL Link（微信外点击唤起小程序活动页）
- h5_url: H5 活动页地址（AI 应用内直接打开）
Args:
activity_id: 活动 ID
Returns:
JSON 字符串，包含活动卡片数据
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| activity_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly signals a read-only retrieval action ('获取') and adds useful context about the two URL types (WeChat-external vs H5). However, it does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, failure modes, or the validity/expiry behavior of the generated links.
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?
The description is compact and well organized: purpose, trigger condition, returned fields, args, and returns. The bullet list is readable, though the 'C 端工具包核心' phrase contributes little and could be removed.
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 one-parameter retrieval tool with an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient to invoke the tool correctly. The main gaps are lack of sibling differentiation, no guidance on choosing between url_link and h5_url, and no constraints such as whether the activity must be published or currently open.
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?
The single parameter activity_id has 0% schema description coverage, and the Args line only restates '活动 ID', which adds essentially nothing beyond the schema's type and title. It does not explain where to find the ID, its format, or any validation requirements.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('获取活动的卡片数据') and lists the card's contents plus the two returned URLs. It is unambiguous what the tool does, but it does not explicitly contrast it with siblings such as generate_urllink, so it stops short of a 5.
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 a direct trigger condition: call it when the user wants to see an activity's mini-program card with title, cover, time/location, price, and registration link. This is clear context, but it does not mention when-not-to-use or name 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.