Read a Xiaohongshu note from a full URL with xsec_token or 24-character ID to get title, author, full text, engagement counts, and tags as structured JSON.
Read a Xiaohongshu (Little Red Book) note: title, author, full text, likes/collects/comments, tags. Pass a full note URL (with xsec_token) when possible.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | 完整笔记链接（优先，含 xsec_token）或 24 位笔记 ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does 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 this is a read operation and what fields come back, but says nothing about authentication needs, rate limits, or failure behavior when the note is private or the token is missing.
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 action and return payload front-loaded, followed by the key invocation hint. No filler or redundancy.
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 and no annotations, the description is nearly sufficient: it names the platform, the resource, and the return fields. The only meaningful gap is behavioral context (auth, failure modes) that an agent might want before invoking.
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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter's own description already covers both the full-URL-with-xsec_token preference and the 24-character ID alternative. The description merely restates the URL preference, adding no new syntax or format detail.
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 gives a specific verb (Read) and resource (a Xiaohongshu note) and even enumerates the returned fields (title, author, text, engagement counts, tags). The platform specificity implicitly separates it from siblings like bilibili/video and douyin/detail, though it never names or contrasts them 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?
"Pass a full note URL (with xsec_token) when possible" gives a parameter preference hint, which implies the tool is for fetching a note when you have a link. However, there is no when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no routing toward web/read or other siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.