weread-mcp

我的划线

get_book_highlights

Read-only

Retrieve underlined highlights from a specified book in WeChat Reading, grouped by chapter with original quoted text and creation dates. Useful for exporting notes when combined with reviews.

Instructions

获取我在某本书里的划线内容（/book/bookmarklist）。

    接口已自动过滤书签（type=0），只返回划线（type=1）；书签内容当前无法导出，
    书签**数量**见 `list_notebooks` 的 `bookmarkCount`。

    用 `chapters[].chapterUid` / `title` 把 `updated[]` 里的划线按章节分组展示，
    原文用引用格式 `>` 标注，`createTime` 转 `YYYY-MM-DD`。

    用户说「导出这本书的所有笔记」时，必须同时调用本工具和 `get_my_reviews`，
    只返回划线是不完整的。

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`book_id`	Yes	书籍 ID

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses that bookmarks (type=0) are automatically filtered out, only highlights (type=1) are returned, and bookmark content is currently unavailable for export. This is material behavioral context an agent needs.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core purpose appears first, followed by filtering behavior, formatting instructions, and sibling-tool coordination. Every sentence adds value without filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a read-only, single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it explains what is filtered, how results should be grouped and formatted, the bookmark limitation, and the required pairing with get_my_reviews for full note export.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The single parameter book_id is already fully documented in the schema with '书籍 ID' (100% schema coverage). The description only refers to '某本书' and adds no additional semantic detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with '获取我在某本书里的划线内容' (get my highlights in a book), a specific verb+resource statement. It further clarifies that only highlights (type=1) are returned, not bookmarks, which distinguishes it from related note/review tools.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: for '导出这本书的所有笔记', the tool must be combined with get_my_reviews. It also states bookmarks cannot be exported and their count is available via list_notebooks, providing clear exclusions and alternatives.

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