Fetch complete details for a Douyin video or image post, including caption, author, engagement stats, no-watermark play address, and gallery. Accepts a share short link, video URL, or numeric ID.
Get a Douyin video/post in full: caption, engagement stats, author, no-watermark play address, image gallery (for 图文 posts). Accepts share short link, video URL, or numeric id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | Yes | 分享短链 / 视频链接 / 纯数字 ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the returned payload, including the no-watermark play address and that galleries appear only for 图文 posts, and 'Get' implies a read operation. It says nothing about authentication, rate limits, or what happens for private/deleted/unavailable posts.
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 tight sentences with the payload front-loaded and no filler; the second sentence efficiently covers accepted input forms. Every clause earns its place.
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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description does the important work of listing what comes back, and there is no output schema that would otherwise cover returns. Minor gaps remain around auth/error behavior, but the agent has enough to call 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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the single target parameter is already documented in the schema (分享短链 / 视频链接 / 纯数字 ID). The description's 'share short link, video URL, or numeric id' is essentially an English restatement, adding no new syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 for a fully-documented schema.
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 ('Get a Douyin video/post') and enumerates the payload (caption, stats, author, play address, gallery), and the 'Douyin' qualifier naturally separates it from the platform-specific siblings bilibili/video and xiaohongshu/note. It never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings, but the platform scoping makes selection unambiguous.
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 identification of the resource type (Douyin posts and 图文 image posts), and the accepted input forms are spelled out. There is, however, no when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of auth or permission prerequisites, and no routing advice versus the sibling platform tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.