tiebaRetrieve the hot discussion list from Baidu Tieba to identify trending topics on the forum.
获取百度贴吧热议榜数据
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": "tieba"
}
}| 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?
No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility. It merely states '获取...数据' (get data) without disclosing authentication needs, rate limits, caching behavior (though hinted by the 'noCache' parameter), or any side effects.
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 short sentence, making it concise and easy to parse. However, it could include more structured information without being verbose.
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?
Given the lack of output schema, annotations, and parameter descriptions, the tool description provides only the bare minimum. It fails to convey return format, error conditions, or usage constraints, leaving the agent underinformed.
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%, and the description does not explain the 'limit' or 'noCache' parameters at all. The agent must infer their purpose from names alone, which is insufficient.
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 specifies the verb '获取' (get) and the resource '百度贴吧热议榜数据' (Baidu Tieba hot discussion list data), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools which 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 explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. However, the name and title implicitly indicate it's for Baidu Tieba, which differentiates it from siblings, but no further context is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.