Fetch WeChat Official Account article lists by account ID with pagination; supply an article UUID to retrieve a specific post for investment influencer content collection.
公众号投资大V文章列表查询(蒸馏器素材采集)：按公众号微信号分页拉取文章列表，支持用文章UUID精确获取单篇
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| offset | No | 分页偏移量 | |
| account | Yes | 公众号微信号 | |
| workUuid | No | 文章UUID（精确获取单篇时填写） |
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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core read behavior: paginated fetching by account and exact single-article fetching by UUID. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, result ordering, or what happens when the account or UUID is invalid—gaps that would matter for an agent deciding how to invoke it.
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 core purpose and then specifies the two retrieval modes. The parenthetical '蒸馏器素材采集' adds some project-specific context but does not bloat the text. Every essential 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 tool with three parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description gives adequate but incomplete context. It explains the main query modes and required parameter, but does not clarify result shape, pagination defaults, or the relationship between offset and workUuid. These details are not covered elsewhere, leaving notable gaps.
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 reinforces the meanings of account (公众号微信号), offset (分页), and workUuid (精确获取单篇), but adds no new detail beyond the schema, such as pagination size, UUID format, or the interaction between offset and workUuid.
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 tool queries article lists from WeChat public-account investment influencers ('公众号投资大V文章列表'), identifying the resource and verb. It also distinguishes two usage modes: paginated list pulling by account and exact single-article retrieval by UUID. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, so some differentiation is inferred rather than stated.
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 implies when to use the tool: when needing a paginated article list for a specific WeChat public account, or a single article by UUID. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool to choose instead, such as generic wechat-search or gzh-astock-top. The usage context is functional but not comparative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.