get_post_commentsRetrieve comments from any Xueqiu post using its post ID. Sort by newest or oldest and paginate through results to analyze community discussions.
获取某篇雪球帖子下的评论。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | 页码，默认1 | |
| sort | No | 排序：newest 或 oldest | newest |
| count | No | 每页数量，默认20，最大50 | |
| post_id | Yes | 帖子ID（纯数字） |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | ||
| comments | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond the resource scope, but it does not contradict the annotations either.
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 a single clear sentence with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately front-loaded, though it could provide slightly more context without becoming bloated.
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 read-only tool with fully documented parameters, an output schema, and safety-related annotations, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool does. It lacks explicit usage guidance but does not leave critical gaps for correct invocation.
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%, so the schema itself fully documents post_id, page, sort, and count. The description does not add any parameter-level detail, which is acceptable given the high coverage.
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 ('获取') and resource ('某篇雪球帖子下的评论'), clearly indicating the tool returns comments for a given Xueqiu post. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_post_detail, though it does not explicitly call out that difference.
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: this tool is for retrieving comments under a post. However, the description does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusion criteria, or mention of alternatives such as get_post_detail.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.