Retrieve all WeChat group chats, including the group name and member count for each.
获取所有群聊列表，包含群名称和成员数。
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": "wechat_get_rooms"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns all rooms with name and member count, which is useful, but it does not mention potential side effects, authentication needs, or failure modes. The read-only behavior is implied by 'get', but not explicitly stated, so transparency is moderate.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the action and outcome in a compact manner. It contains no redundant information and is perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.
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?
The tool is very simple (no parameters, no output schema), and the description covers the essential semantics: it lists all group chats with their names and member counts. However, it does not mention whether additional fields such as group IDs are returned, nor any prerequisites like setup, leaving minor gaps for fully complete context.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain beyond the schema. The 100% schema coverage is trivial, and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning. According to the baseline for parameterless tools, a score of 4 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb '获取' (get) with a clear resource '所有群聊列表' (all group chat list), and explicitly states the returned fields (group name and member count). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like wechat_get_contacts, which focuses on contacts rather than rooms.
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?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The intended usage is only implied by the tool's name and the phrase '所有' (all), so the agent must infer the context without explicit 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.