Retrieve the bloggers subscribed to a knowledge base by topic ID, with optional pagination for browsing.
获取知识库订阅的博主列表。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） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.10.1Input schema / properties / topic_id / descriptionPrevious value: -"知识库 ID（alias id，来自 list_topics 的 id 字段）"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, and it does add genuine context by disclosing the required 'topic.blogger.read' scope. However, it says nothing about pagination behavior despite a page parameter, nor about the shape or size of the returned list.
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, front-loaded sentences: the purpose first, then the permission prerequisite. Nothing is redundant and nothing needs to be scanned for.
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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, purpose and auth scope are covered. Missing are the pagination contract (default/size) and any hint of what the returned list entries contain, which matters more here because there are no annotations to fall back on.
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% — page (1-based, default 1) and topic_id (sourced from list_topics) are both fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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: fetch the list of bloggers subscribed by a knowledge base. It is distinguishable from siblings like follow_topic_blogger (write) and list_topic_blogger_contents (contents of a blogger), though it never explicitly names those alternatives.
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 implied by the listing verb plus the knowledge-base scope; an agent can infer this is the read path for bloggers in a topic. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no mention of follow_topic_blogger or list_topic_blogger_contents as alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.