Query the sending status of a WeChat Official Account mass message using its message ID. Verify whether the broadcast was delivered successfully or identify any issues during dispatch.
查询群发消息发送状态。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| msg_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?
The annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description aligns with this by saying '查询' (query), but it does not add meaningful behavioral context beyond that, such as what status values may be returned or any operational constraints.
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, direct sentence with no filler or redundant content. It is appropriately concise and front-loads the core purpose.
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 one-parameter read-only tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is mostly adequate. The main missing piece is explicit clarification of msg_id semantics and some distinction from get_publish_status, but these are not severe given the tool's simplicity.
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 does not explain what msg_id refers to or where it comes from. An agent must infer that msg_id is the mass message ID from the tool name and purpose, which is not made explicit.
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 action and resource: it queries the sending status of a mass message. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling get_publish_status, 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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, when not to use it, or what preceding step provides the msg_id. The description simply states the action with no contextual decision rules.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.