Send text messages to a specified WeChat contact or group. If the target is ambiguous, it refuses and lists candidates; if delivery cannot be confirmed, it reports failure without retrying.
向明确指定的联系人或群聊发送文本消息。目标不唯一时拒绝发送并返回候选列表；无法确认发送成功时返回失败状态，不自动重试。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | No | ||
| dry_run | No | ||
| message | Yes | ||
| recipient | 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose meaningful traits: refusal on ambiguous recipients, a returned candidate list, a failure status when delivery cannot be confirmed, and an explicit no-auto-retry policy. It omits permissions and the meaning of the confirm/dry_run switches, keeping it short of a 5.
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 dense sentences with no filler, and the primary action is front-loaded before the guardrail clauses. It is efficient, though the second sentence compresses two distinct behaviors into one line.
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 values need not be explained. However, for a four-parameter write tool with zero schema coverage and no annotations, the description leaves the dry_run/confirm semantics entirely undocumented, which is a real gap for correct invocation.
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 for all four parameters and it does not. The recipient concept is hinted at ('explicitly specified contact or group'), but message, confirm, and especially dry_run are never mentioned, leaving the agent unable to discover preview or confirmation behavior.
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+resource (send a text message) and narrows the scope to an explicitly specified contact or group chat, which implicitly separates it from send_file. It does not name any sibling outright, so it falls just short of full differentiation, but the action is unambiguous.
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 a conditional rule (if the target is not unique, refuse and return candidates), which tells the agent it must resolve ambiguity first, but it never says when to prefer this tool over alternatives like send_file or how to obtain a unique recipient. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.