weread-mcp

划线下的想法

get_highlight_reviews

Read-only

Retrieve reader comments and thoughts for specific highlighted passages in a WeChat Reading book. Provide book ID, chapter UID, and highlight ranges to get reviews with content, author, and timestamp.

Instructions

获取指定划线范围下面的想法/评论（/book/readreviews）。

    本工具会把 `ranges` 组装成网关要求的 `reviews` 数组
    （这是少数允许作为数组传入的业务字段）。

    回包 `reviews[].pageReviews[].review` 里有 `abstract`（划线原文）、
    `content`（想法内容）、`author`、`createTime`。
    需要单条想法的完整详情（含评论/点赞）时再调 `get_review_detail`。

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`count`	No	每个 range 拉取的想法数量，服务端上限 20
`ranges`	Yes	要查询的划线位置范围列表，如 ["393-401"]，取自 get_best_highlights 返回的 items[].range
`book_id`	Yes	书籍 ID
`max_idx`	No	翻页偏移，默认 0
`synckey`	No	翻页游标，默认 0
`chapter_uid`	Yes	章节 UID

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

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare `readOnlyHint=true` and `destructiveHint=false`, so the safety profile is conveyed. The description adds value by explaining the request assembly (reviews array transformation), the response structure (abstract, content, author, createTime), and the pagination-related parameters (max_idx, synckey). No contradiction with annotations. It does not mention rate limits or error behaviors, but those are not mandated.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a few sentences that front-load the core purpose, then add essential assembly and response details, and end with the sibling routing. It avoids fluff and remains readable, though it could be slightly more compact by merging some clauses.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (6 params, no nested objects) and the existence of an output schema that documents return structure, the description is complete. It covers the request construction, response fields, and provides an alternative tool pointer. Missing explicit error handling or edge cases, but these are not critical for correct invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with every parameter documented (ranges source and format, count limits, pagination fields). The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb (获取/fetch), a clear resource (指定划线范围下面的想法/评论), and the API endpoint (`/book/readreviews`). It explicitly contrasts with `get_review_detail` for single-review detail, and lists the response fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like `get_best_highlights` and `get_my_reviews`.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description states a clear condition for using `get_review_detail` instead (when single-thought complete details including comments/likes are needed). It also implies `ranges` come from `get_best_highlights`. However, it does not explicitly exclude other sibling tools or explain when this tool is preferable over `get_my_reviews` or `list_book_reviews`, leaving some ambiguity.

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