Fetch a Xiaohongshu note's text, images, author, and engagement metrics from its URL for content analysis or archiving.
Fetch content from a Xiaohongshu (Little Red Book) note including text, images, author, and engagement metrics.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Xiaohongshu note URL (xiaohongshu.com or xhslink.com) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Fetch' implies a read-only operation and the description usefully discloses the returned payload (text, images, author, metrics), but it says nothing about authentication needs, rate limits, failure modes, or whether access requires login.
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 tight sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the payload. No filler or redundancy.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it names the source, the input (URL), and the returned contents. The remaining gaps (auth requirements, error behavior) are minor for this tool's complexity.
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 the single 'url' parameter is already documented in the schema with accepted domains (xiaohongshu.com, xhslink.com). The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, 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?
The description states a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('Xiaohongshu note content') and enumerates what is retrieved (text, images, author, engagement metrics). It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling fetchers like fetch_wechat_article or fetch_tiktok_video beyond naming the platform.
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 by the platform name and the 'fetch' verb; the description offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternative tools. An agent can infer this is the retrieval path for Xiaohongshu notes, but nothing is stated explicitly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.