Retrieve full blogger post content, including the original post_media_text, by providing topic and post IDs for detailed content access.
获取博主内容详情，包含完整原文（post_media_text）。需要 topic.blogger.read scope。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| post_id | Yes | 内容 ID（来自 list_topic_blogger_contents 的 post_id_alias 字段） | |
| topic_id | Yes | 知识库 ID（来自 list_topics 的 topic_id 字段） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.10.1Input schema / properties / topic_id / descriptionPrevious value: -"知识库 ID（alias id）"New value: +"知识库 ID（来自 list_topics 的 topic_id 字段）"v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the required auth scope (topic.blogger.read) and implies a read-only fetch, but says nothing about error behavior, permissions failures, or side effects for an undocumented call.
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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the payload value and followed by the access prerequisite. Nothing is redundant.
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 two-param, no-output-schema read tool, this is close to sufficient: parameters are fully documented and the key return field (post_media_text) is named. It stops short of describing the rest of the returned detail object.
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 both parameters already document their provenance (post_id_alias from list_topic_blogger_contents, topic_id from list_topics). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 ('获取博主内容详情') plus the distinguishing payload ('完整原文 (post_media_text)'). It clearly contrasts in spirit with list-style siblings like list_topic_blogger_contents, but it never names that sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the split.
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 only implied: the mention of '完整原文' signals this is for when you need the full body rather than a list summary. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as list_topic_blogger_contents.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.