check_contentRun local deterministic checks on title, body, topics, and assets before publishing. Hash asset file contents, reject missing paths; use rules as advisory reminders and verify current platform policies.
对标题、正文、话题和素材做本地确定性预检。素材路径存在时会读取文件字节计入 contentHash；缺失或不读则失败并拒绝伪造哈希。规则是提示而非法律意见，发布前仍须人工复核平台现行规则。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| topics | No | ||
| assetPaths | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by specifying deterministic local behavior, reading file bytes into contentHash, and failing on missing or unreadable asset paths rather than fabricating hashes (缺失或不读则失败并拒绝伪造哈希). This is valuable operational detail that the annotation 'readOnlyHint=true' alone does not convey. No contradiction with the read-only annotation.
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 three sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. The second sentence adds essential failure semantics, and the third provides a necessary usage caveat. No redundant filler.
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 pre-check tool with no output schema, the description explains purpose, operational constraints (deterministic, local, hash), and caveats about manual review. It does not describe the return value format or how check results should be interpreted, which is a gap given no output schema exists. The most critical behavior is covered, but the output semantics remain unclear.
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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It names all four categories (title, body, topics, assetPaths) and elaborates on assetPaths behavior (reading file bytes, failing on missing). However, it does not clarify optionality, constraints, or the exact role of topics beyond being subject to checking.
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 action: 'perform local deterministic pre-check on title, body, topics, and assets' (对标题、正文、话题和素材做本地确定性预检). It clearly identifies the resource (Xiaohongshu content draft) and differentiates from sibling tools by emphasizing 'pre-check' rather than submission, approval, or publishing. The added hash behavior further clarifies its role.
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 a pre-publication context and explicitly cautions that 'rules are tips, not legal advice' and that 'manual review of current platform rules is still required before publishing' (发布前仍须人工复核平台现行规则). This tells an agent when the result is not authoritative. However, it does not name any alternative sibling tool or state when not to use it in favor of safety_status or submit_for_review.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.