weread-mcp

笔记本概览

list_notebooks

Read-only

Get all books that have notes from WeChat Reading, with counts of highlights, reviews, and bookmarks, using cursor pagination for large libraries.

Instructions

列出所有有笔记的书（/user/notebooks）。

    字段口径：
    - `books[].noteCount` 是**划线（高亮原文）条数**，不是该书总笔记数。
    - 单本书总笔记数 = `reviewCount + noteCount + bookmarkCount`。
    - `reviewCount` 已包含个人点评/书评想法，不要再额外加「点评数」，否则重复计算。
    - 本接口不返回 `highlightCount`；「高亮数/划线数」对应的是 `noteCount`。

    分页只支持游标：首次只传 `count`，`hasMore=1` 时取本页最后一项的 `sort`
    作为下一次的 `last_sort`；**不支持** offset/limit。需要完整排行时循环到 `hasMore=0`。

    `_computed.noteCountByBook` 是本服务端按公式算好并降序排序的结果。

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`count`	No	每页数量，默认 20
`last_sort`	No	翻页游标：上一页 books 最后一项的 sort 值。首页不传。

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 annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint), the description adds substantial behavioral detail: field semantics (noteCount is highlight count, total notes formula), pagination mechanics, and a note about a computed field. This fully informs the agent about how the tool behaves without contradicting the annotations.

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 well-structured: it starts with the core purpose, then uses bullet points to explain field semantics, and ends with pagination details. Every sentence earns its place—there is no fluff. The front-loading of the main action and the logical grouping make it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers all tricky aspects: the distinction between noteCount and total notes, the pagination protocol, and the presence of a computed field. For a tool with two optional parameters, this is fully complete for correct 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 input schema already covers both parameters (count and last_sort) with descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. However, the description adds critical usage semantics: how to use last_sort with hasMore, that count is the page size, and that offset/limit are unsupported. This goes beyond the schema, warranting a 4 rather than a baseline 3.

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 a clear, specific action: '列出所有有笔记的书' (list all books with notes) and includes the endpoint. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_shelf or search_books, which have different scopes. The verb+resource is unambiguous and no tautology is present.

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 provides clear context on what the tool returns and how to paginate (cursor-only, no offset/limit), but it does not explicitly state when to use this over siblings like get_shelf or search_books. The purpose is self-evident, but there is no exclusionary guidance, so it stops short of a 5.

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