wechat_list_draftsRetrieve a paginated list of WeChat Official Account drafts sorted by last update, excluding article body content by default to reduce response size.
分页获取草稿列表，按更新时间倒序。默认不返回正文内容以节省篇幅。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | 返回数量，1-20 | |
| offset | No | 从第几条开始，0 为第一条 | |
| no_content | No | 为 true 时不返回文章正文 content 字段 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare readOnlyHint, and the description adds real behavioral facts: fixed update-time descending order and a default that suppresses the article body to save space. It stops short of describing what fields are returned or whether there is a total count, but the added context is substantive.
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?
Two short sentences with zero filler; the retrieval scope and the default no-body behavior are both front-loaded. Every clause carries information an agent needs.
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?
For a read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers ordering and body suppression but says nothing about the shape of returned items or how to paginate to the end (e.g., total count). Adequate but with a visible gap around return values.
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 100%, so all three parameters (count, offset, no_content) are already documented in the schema, including defaults and ranges. The description restates the no_content default rather than adding new semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb and resource (获取草稿列表) plus its pagination and ordering behavior, which clearly separates it from single-item siblings like wechat_get_draft. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as wechat_list_published, so it falls just short of a 5.
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?
Usage is implied by the resource ('drafts' vs the published-list and count siblings), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. An agent must infer that this is for browsing drafts rather than counting them or fetching one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.