Retrieve a linux.do topic as ready-to-display Markdown with source header and per-post table. Accepts topic ID or URL, optional post count and starting floor.
同 get_topic，但直接返回拼好的 Markdown（出处头 + 逐楼表格），客户端可原样展示。 topic_id 可传数字 id 或 linux.do 话题 URL（自动解析）。posts=楼层数， start=起始楼层(1-based，翻页用，如 start=21)。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| posts | No | ||
| start | No | ||
| topic_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output format and the URL auto-parsing behavior, but does not mention error handling, authentication, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. These gaps matter because no annotations are present.
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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and output format, and the second efficiently covers all parameter semantics.
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?
The description is largely complete for a formatting tool: it explains output, parameters, and pagination, and an output schema exists to cover return structure. It relies on get_topic for underlying behavior and omits edge cases or limits, but nothing critical is missing for basic 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 fully compensates. It explains topic_id accepts either a numeric ID or a linux.do URL, posts means number of floors, and start is a 1-based starting floor for pagination with an example. Every parameter is given meaningful semantics.
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 clearly states that this tool behaves like get_topic but returns pre-assembled Markdown with a source header and per-post table, which distinguishes it from its sibling get_topic. The purpose is specific and actionable.
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 explicitly frames format_topic as an alternative to get_topic, indicating it is for clients that want display-ready Markdown. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention other alternatives, but the comparison to get_topic gives clear usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.