Retrieve the full news_item array of a WeChat Official Account draft by providing its media_id, enabling access to draft content for review or further processing.
读取草稿的完整 news_item 数组。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| media_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful scope context by saying it reads the 'complete' news_item array, but does not disclose additional behaviors such as error cases, auth requirements, or potential return limitations.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes to identifying the tool's function.
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?
Given a single required parameter, a clear read-only annotation profile, and an existing output schema, the description is mostly complete for a simple retrieval tool. The main gap is the lack of explicit identifier semantics or alternative routing, but these are minor for this simple call.
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% and the description provides no explicit explanation of media_id beyond what the schema title 'Media Id' already conveys. The draft context is implicit, but the description does not compensate for the missing parameter 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 states a specific verb and resource: '读取草稿的完整 news_item 数组' (read the complete news_item array of a draft), making the operation distinctly about retrieving a draft's full content. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like list_drafts, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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 its use case: when you need the complete news_item array for a specific draft. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it, nor does it mention alternatives such as list_drafts for draft summaries or get_published_article for published content.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.