Fetch a RedNote (Xiaohongshu) note by URL and return its title, body, author, tags, and counts. Read-only; no posts, comments, or likes are made.
Read one note: title, body, author, tags, counts. Read only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the read-only nature ('Read only'), which is genuinely useful, but adds nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, error behavior, or whether the URL must be public.
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 compact sentences with zero waste, front-loading the verb and the returned fields. Nothing extraneous.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema this is nearly adequate, and the field list substitutes for a return description. However, the undocumented url parameter and absence of annotations leave the definition short of fully callable guidance.
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 single required parameter has 0% schema description coverage and no annotation help. The description never explains that 'url' must be a note URL or its expected format, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.
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?
States a specific verb+resource (read one note) and enumerates the fields returned (title, body, author, tags, counts). The singular 'one note' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling rednote_search, but no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as rednote_search or rednote_get_comments. There are no prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions stated, so the agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.