Find WeChat article candidates through Sogou's public index, filter by account name and time range, and write results to a recoverable ledger for reliable follow-up.
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；结果写入可恢复账本。不保证完整历史。
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds valuable context beyond them: results are written to a recoverable ledger and complete history is not guaranteed. This complements the openWorldHint and gives the agent concrete expectations about side effects and data completeness.
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, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose, then adds the two most important constraints (filtering and incomplete history). No redundancy, no 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?
The description covers the essential purpose and key filtering behavior, but with no output schema it does not state the return format, how results map to the ledger, or how the agent should handle pagination. For a search tool with several siblings, more context about output structure and integration would be needed for full 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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries full responsibility for parameter meaning. It explains account_name and the time-range filters ('search index time') but omits semantics for the required query parameter and the page parameter. Time units and pagination behavior are not mentioned, leaving significant gaps for a 5-parameter tool.
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 a specific verb-resource relationship: 'discover article candidates through Sogou public WeChat index.' It identifies the source (Sogou) and the action (discover candidates), which distinguishes it from some siblings like search_wechat_articles_tencent. However, it does not explicitly name or differentiate against sibling tools, so it stops short of a 5.
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 provides clear context for use: it is for discovering candidates via the Sogou public WeChat index, with optional filters by account name and index time. It does not explain when NOT to use this tool or directly compare against search_wechat_articles_batch/tencent, but the context is sufficiently scoped to guide selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.