Find WeChat article candidates through Sogou's public index, filtering by account name and search index time. Returns redirect links to open in a browser and verify each article.
通过搜狗公开微信索引发现文章候选，可按账号名称与搜索索引时间过滤；不保证完整历史。返回搜索跳转链接，由正常浏览器打开并核对文章。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| end_time | No | ||
| start_time | No | ||
| account_name | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint=true annotation, the description adds important behavioral context: it does not guarantee complete history and it returns a search redirect link that must be opened in a browser for verification. This is a key limitation an agent must know before calling, and it goes beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction with 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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and source, then caveats. It is efficient with no filler. The structure is clear, though it could be slightly more organized with explicit parameter mentions.
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 tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not explain pagination (page), the exact format of time filters, or the structure of the returned redirect link (e.g., how to follow it). An agent would need to infer several details, making the description insufficient for reliable 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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for all 5 parameters. It mentions filtering by account name (account_name) and search index time (start_time/end_time), but it does not explain the 'page' parameter or the nature of the required 'query' beyond its obvious meaning. This partial coverage leaves several parameters underspecified for the agent.
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 verb 'discover' and the resource 'WeChat articles via Sogou's public index'. It specifies the source, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like search_wechat_articles_tencent, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The filtering capabilities are mentioned, adding clarity, but the description doesn't differentiate it from the batch variant.
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 this is for searching WeChat articles through Sogou's index but provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like search_wechat_articles_batch or search_wechat_articles_tencent. It also doesn't mention any exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent without routing information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.