Search WeChat contacts and group chats by name, returning candidate matches. When names are identical, it returns all candidates without guessing so the caller can disambiguate.
按名称搜索联系人/群聊，返回候选列表。同名时原样返回多个候选，不自行猜测，需由调用方进一步指定。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| keyword | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose meaningful behavior beyond the schema: results are a candidate list, duplicates are returned unmodified, and the tool will not guess a single match. It omits any statement about read-only safety, result limits/pagination, or the data source being searched.
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?
Two tight sentences with zero filler. The core action is front-loaded and the ambiguity-handling rule follows immediately; every clause carries information.
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?
An output schema exists, so return structure needn't be explained, and the duplicate-handling rule is a genuinely useful addition. Still missing for a search tool: scope of the search corpus, limit/truncation behavior, and how the caller is expected to refine an ambiguous result set.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that the required keyword matches by name (contacts and group chats), but adds nothing about the limit parameter, its default of 20, or whether results are truncated — leaving half the parameters undocumented in both places.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: search contacts/group chats by name and return a candidate list. That is clearly distinct from siblings like get_chat_list, get_chat_info or get_chat_history, though it never names an alternative 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?
The description implies usage (look up an entity when you only know its name) and gives one concrete handling rule for ambiguous results — return duplicates as-is and let the caller disambiguate. However, it never states when to prefer this over get_chat_list or get_chat_info, so routing guidance is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.