Check the WeChat push bridge status and verify whether a context_token is cached and the target user's WeChat ID is set, enabling pre-push self-checks for automated messaging.
返回推送桥当前状态：是否已缓存 context_token、目标用户微信id。供自动化推送前自检。
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a status (cached or not), implying a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state non-destructiveness, whether any side effects occur, or the exact return format. Given the simplicity, it adds some value but lacks explicit behavioral details.
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, compact sentence that front-loads the key information (what is returned) and then states its purpose. There is no redundancy or filler.
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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema status check tool, the description covers the essential purpose and when to use it. It does not detail the exact format of the status (e.g., boolean vs. object), but the phrasing '是否已缓存' (whether cached) implies a boolean-like response. Given the tool's simplicity, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters. Per rubric, baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately omits parameter details since there are none.
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 the verb (返回/returns), resource (推送桥当前状态/current status of the push bridge), and specifically what it returns (whether context_token and target user WeChat ID are cached). It also mentions its purpose (pre-push self-check), which distinguishes it from siblings push_wechat_message and acquire_token.
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 gives a clear usage context: '供自动化推送前自检' (for self-check before automated push). This tells an agent when to use it, but it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives to siblings. However, the purpose is unambiguous enough to guide selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.