Fetch paginated comments from published WeChat articles by providing article ID and index, with optional count and offset for controlled retrieval.
分页读取已发表文章评论。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| begin | No | ||
| count | No | ||
| index | Yes | ||
| msg_data_id | Yes | ||
| comment_type | No |
| 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?
With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, the safety profile is covered. The description adds the pagination behavior, which is useful, but it does not disclose ordering, page-size limits, or handling of missing comments.
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 redundant words. It is concise, though arguably too terse given the number of parameters, but it earns points for being waste-free.
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 five parameters and zero schema descriptions, a one-line description is insufficient. While an output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the lack of parameter explanations and pagination details leaves a significant documentation gap.
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 the meaning of msg_data_id, index, begin, count, or comment_type. The word paginated hints at begin/count/index but provides no concrete semantics, leaving the agent without enough information to correctly populate parameters.
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 and resource: paginated reading of comments on published articles. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like mark_comment_elect (comment mutation) and list_published (article listing), leaving no ambiguity about what it does.
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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no prerequisites. It only states the function, so the agent must infer usage from the name and surrounding context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.