fanfou-mcp

public_timeline

Read public Fanfou statuses with an adjustable count from 1 to 60 to browse recent posts from the platform.

Instructions

Read the latest public statuses on Fanfou. count 1-60.

Tool call template

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": "public_timeline"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`count`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 17, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Read' implies a safe read operation, but it says nothing about authentication requirements (Fanfou timelines typically need a session), rate limits, or ordering/refresh semantics, leaving real gaps for a network-backed tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short, front-loaded fragments with no filler; the purpose leads and the constraint follows. The second fragment ('count 1-60') is telegraphic, but nothing is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the one parameter is at least bounded. Still missing are auth requirements and how this feed differs from the sibling timelines, which an agent needs to select it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the single 'count' parameter. It usefully supplies the valid range (1-60) that the schema omits, but does not mention the default of 20 or what happens on out-of-range input, so the compensation is partial.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Read the latest public statuses on Fanfou,' which tells an agent exactly what data comes back. However, it offers no differentiation from close siblings like home_timeline, user_timeline, or search_public_timeline, so the agent must infer that 'public' means unauthenticated/global feed.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no contrast against the five sibling timeline tools, and no prerequisites or auth context. The only supplemental text ('count 1-60') is a parameter constraint, not usage guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server