Retrieve WeChat culture and tourism articles by keyword and date, sorted by read count. Check dates lacking data before querying.
文旅公众号信息源查询：按关键词与日期获取文旅类公众号热门文章(阅读量排序)。数据每日15:00更新前一天，无数据日期必须确认后再查
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | 数据日期 YYYY-MM-DD（默认最近数据日） | |
| count | No | 最大返回条数 1-200（默认100） | |
| keyword | No | 内容关键词，如 文旅、景区、旅游攻略（留空返回全部） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v1.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses meaningful traits: daily update timing, previous-day data coverage, no-data-date confirmation, and read-count ordering. For a non-destructive feed query this is strong context, though auth/rate-limit details are not 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?
Two tightly packed sentences: purpose and sorting in the first, data freshness and an operational caveat in the second. No filler; every sentence 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 simple query tool with 3 optional, fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return type (hot articles sorted by read count), data freshness, and the no-data behavior. The lack of an explicit output shape is a minor gap but does not block tool selection or invocation.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description's 按关键词与日期 adds little beyond the schema, while the update-timing sentence adds minor contextual meaning to the date parameter.
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 and resource: 查询/获取文旅类公众号热门文章, sorted by 阅读量. The platform (公众号/WeChat) and topic (文旅) clearly distinguish it from sibling feeds such as cultural-tourism-bilibili-feed or wechat-10w-hot.
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?
Provides usage context: query by keyword and date, data refreshes daily at 15:00 for the previous day, and dates with no data require confirmation. It does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over the many sibling wechat or cultural-tourism feeds, so selection is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.