ngabbsFetch hot posts from NGA forum. Adjust limit and disable cache to get fresh data.
获取NGA热帖数据
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": "ngabbs"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| noCache | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.13Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only mentions fetching hot post data without details on caching, rate limits, or data structure.
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 a single concise sentence, but it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, making it only partially effective.
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 simple tool with two parameters, the description is insufficient; it lacks explanation of return values, parameter behavior, and usage context.
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 coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the 'limit' or 'noCache' parameters, leaving the agent without guidance on their meaning or usage.
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 '获取NGA热帖数据' clearly states the action (获取/get) and resource (NGA热帖数据/NGA hot post data), distinguishing it from sibling tools that target other platforms.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'bilibili' or 'weibo'. The description lacks context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.