Find cultural tourism Xiaohongshu posts by keyword and date, ranked by likes, to identify popular travel topics. Daily updates cover the previous day's data.
文旅小红书信息源查询：按关键词与日期获取文旅类小红书热门笔记(点赞量排序)。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 burden. It discloses meaningful behavioral traits: results are sorted by likes, data is refreshed daily at 15:00 for the prior day, and there is a no-data caveat requiring confirmation before querying. It does not describe the return format or what happens on an empty date, but the key operational behaviors 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?
A single compact sentence that leads with the tool's purpose, then the data freshness schedule, then the confirmation caveat. Every clause adds value and there is no redundant filler, making it easy to scan.
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 three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers what it does, how data is updated, and an important availability caveat. The 'must confirm' instruction is slightly ambiguous regarding how to confirm and what happens on missing dates, and no output shape is specified, but the core information needed for invocation is present.
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 baseline 3 applies. The description adds '按关键词与日期' and '点赞量排序', but that is largely restating schema intent or describing result ordering rather than adding new parameter semantics. It does not substantially compensate beyond what the schema already documents.
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 states a specific verb ('获取', retrieve) and resource ('文旅类小红书热门笔记', cultural-tourism Xiaohongshu popular notes), with explicit criteria: keyword, date, and like-count ordering. The '文旅' prefix clearly distinguishes it from sibling Xiaohongshu feeds such as xiaohongshu-ai-feed and from platform-specific cultural-tourism feeds for Bilibili, Douyin, and WeChat.
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 clear operational context: data updates daily at 15:00 for the previous day, and dates without data must be confirmed before querying. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the context is specific enough that an agent can infer the appropriate scenario.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.