Retrieve a paginated list of content summaries published by a specific blogger within a knowledge base.
获取知识库中某个博主发布的内容列表（摘要，不含原文）。需要 topic.blogger.read scope。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | 页码，从 1 开始，默认 1 | |
| topic_id | Yes | 知识库 ID（来自 list_topics 的 topic_id 字段） | |
| follow_id | Yes | 博主订阅 ID（优先使用 list_topic_bloggers 返回的 follow_id_str；兼容安全整数 follow_id） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.10.1Input schema / properties / follow_id / descriptionPrevious value: -"博主订阅 ID（来自 list_topic_bloggers 的 follow_id 字段）"New value: +"博主订阅 ID（优先使用 list_topic_bloggers 返回的 follow_id_str；兼容安全整数 follow_id）"Input schema / properties / follow_id / typePrevious value: -"number"New value: +[
+ "string",
+ "number"
+]Input 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?
With no annotations, the description does carry real weight: it discloses the required 'topic.blogger.read' scope and clarifies that results are summaries rather than full text. It says nothing about ordering, result caps, or pagination behavior despite a page parameter existing.
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 short sentences with zero waste: the retrieval action and its output scope come first, followed by the permission requirement. Nothing is buried or 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 read-only list tool with fully documented params and no output schema, the description adequately covers what comes back (summaries, not original text) and what authorization is needed. Minor gap: no hint about the size or shape of the returned list.
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% and each parameter already explains its origin (topic_id from list_topics, follow_id from list_topic_bloggers, page defaulting to 1). The description adds no further parameter semantics, 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: retrieve the list of contents published by a given blogger within a knowledge base. The parenthetical '摘要，不含原文' meaningfully scopes the output, implicitly separating it from the content-detail sibling, though no sibling is named 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?
The 'summary only, not original text' clause hints that a different tool is needed for full content, but it never names get_blogger_content_detail or states when to prefer it. No exclusions or prerequisites beyond the scope requirement are given, leaving usage to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.