Import HTML of an already-open WeChat article to provide its content for analysis, with no script execution or cookie collection. Supply a candidate_id to verify imported data.
导入本人或AI浏览器已正常打开的文章HTML；不执行脚本、不索取Cookie。可提供candidate_id完成候选核验。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| html | Yes | ||
| partial | No | ||
| candidate_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.1.3Input schema / properties / candidate_idAdded value: +{
+ "pattern": "^[a-f0-9]{64}$",
+ "type": "string"
+}v4.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses meaningful behavioral details beyond the annotations: it does not execute scripts and does not request cookies. These reassurances are valuable given the lack of readOnlyHint. However, it does not state what happens after import, such as storage side effects or return behavior.
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, tight sentence that front-loads the core actionholiday, then adds safety constraintsaba, then mentions the optional parameter. It has no redundant wording, though it could be slightly more structured for readability.
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?
The description provides enough for a basic call: required HTML plus optional candidate_id. However, with no output schema, it does not describe what the tool returns, and it leaves partial undefined. For an import operation, this is a noticeable gap in completeness.
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 for explaining parameters. It explains candidate_id's purpose, but the required fields url and html are left entirely to inference, and partial is not mentioned at all. The description only partially compensates for the missing schema documentation.
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 clearly states the action: importing article HTML that has already been opened in the user's or AI browser. It also distinguishes itself from sibling fetch tools by emphasizing the 'already opened' source and the optional candidate_id verification, though it does not name a specific alternative.
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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: when article HTML is already available from an opened page, as opposed to fetching fresh content. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools, but the 'already opened' condition effectively routes away from fetch_wechat_article and similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.