Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
toutiao-mcp

toutiao-mcp

by JessYan0913
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

toutiao_check_status

Checks Toutiao login status by verifying current cookie validity via headless browser, and refreshes local cookie when logged in.

Instructions

检查今日头条登录状态（无头浏览器验证当前 Cookie 是否有效），已登录时会刷新本地 Cookie。

Tool call template

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": "toutiao_check_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the use of a headless browser and a notable side effect: refreshing local cookie when logged in. However, it does not mention behavior on invalid cookie or error handling, so it's good but not exhaustive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the primary action, and efficiently conveys both the mechanism and the side effect without waste.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The core purpose and side effect are covered. However, the return value or status format is not described, and there's no output schema to compensate. For a simple tool this is a minor gap, but the description remains largely complete for invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the calibration baseline, 0 params earns a 4; the description appropriately adds no parameter details since there are none to clarify.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: checking Toutiao login status via headless browser to validate cookie validity. It is a specific verb+resource action, and the mention of headless browser and cookie refresh distinguishes it from sibling tools like login/logout/publish.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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. The purpose implies usage for verifying login status before actions like publishing, but this is inferred rather than stated, lacking exclusions or alternative references.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools