fanfou-mcp

search_user_timeline

Search statuses from a single Fanfou user by keyword; leave the user ID empty to search your own timeline.

Instructions

Search within one user's statuses (user_id empty = the authenticated user).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "q": "<q>"
    },
    "name": "search_user_timeline"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`q`	Yes
`count`	No
`max_id`	No
`user_id`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 17, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

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 burden of behavioral disclosure and delivers very little. It does not state authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (relevant given a max_id param), or result ordering. Only the user_id default behavior is disclosed.

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?

A single tight sentence with the scoping condition front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient but leans on the reader to infer the rest, which is under-specification rather than a structural flaw.

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, which lightens the burden. Still, four undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no mention of auth or pagination leave meaningful gaps for a search tool with a required query parameter.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It explains only user_id's default semantics; q, count, and max_id are left with bare titles, and the pagination meaning of max_id (return results before this ID) is never conveyed.

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?

The description names a specific verb (search) and a bounded resource (one user's statuses), and the parenthetical scope makes it clear this is a per-user timeline search rather than a global one. It does not explicitly name competing siblings like user_timeline or search_public_timeline, so differentiation is only implied by scope wording.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The parenthetical 'user_id empty = the authenticated user' gives a concrete default behavior an agent can act on. However, it never states when to prefer this over user_timeline (unfiltered list) or search_public_timeline (global search), so selection guidance is only inferable.

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

Deploy Server