Retrieve or refresh the context token for WeChat push notifications. Call this first if the token is not yet acquired, then send a phone message to complete binding.
获取/刷新 context_token（长轮询，约 35 秒内需用手机给 bot 发一条消息以完成绑定）。推送前若 bridge_status 显示未获取 token，应先调用本工具。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses important behavior: it uses long polling, requires the user to send a message to the bot within ~35 seconds to complete binding, and must precede push operations. It does not mention failure behavior or what happens on timeout, but the key interactive traits are covered.
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 entire description is one dense, front-loaded sentence. It places the core action first, then provides the essential operational constraint and the ordering rule, with no wasted words.
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?
Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main operational context: binding requirement, timeout window, and relationship to bridge_status and push. It could add what is returned or what happens on timeout, but this is not critical for selecting and invoking the tool.
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 the default baseline of 4 applies. The schema already fully represents the empty input; no additional parameter explanation is needed.
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 clearly states a specific action: obtaining or refreshing context_token, and adds the distinctive long-polling/binding behavior. This differentiates it from sibling tools like bridge_status and push_wechat_message.
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?
It explicitly gives a usage condition: call this tool before pushing when bridge_status shows no token has been acquired. This effectively tells the agent when to invoke it and implies it is unnecessary once a valid token exists.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.