tencent_docs_inspect_formInspect a Tencent Docs collection form to get its title, publish status, question types, and account permissions without changes. Outputs markdown or JSON.
读取收集表标题、发布状态、题型和当前账号权限；不修改任何内容。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| form_url | Yes | 腾讯文档原生收集表公开链接。 | |
| response_format | No | 返回 markdown 或 json。 | markdown |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the closing clause '不修改任何内容' largely restates that. The description adds the functional scope of the read, but omits openWorldHint implications (external link fetching), auth/permission requirements, and rate-limit behavior, so it adds only modest value beyond the annotations.
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 compact sentence with the read scope front-loaded and no filler. The trailing '不修改任何内容' clause is close to redundant with the readOnlyHint annotation, which slightly dilutes the value of the space it occupies.
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?
With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers the fields surfaced plus the no-modification guarantee. It falls short only on use context (when to inspect rather than publish) and external-fetch/auth caveats implied by openWorldHint.
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%; both form_url (public link) and the response_format enum are fully documented in the schema, and the description adds no syntax, format, or linking detail beyond it. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
Names a specific verb (读取) and resource (收集表) and enumerates exactly what is returned: 标题、发布状态、题型、当前账号权限. An agent can distinguish this read-only inspector from the mutating siblings (publish/build/replace) without opening a schema, 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?
No explicit when-to-use guidance, no named alternative, and no prerequisites or ordering advice (e.g. 'use before publish_form'). Usage is only faintly implied by the statement that nothing is modified.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.