Highlight a specific comment as featured on a WeChat Official Account article. Provide the article's message data ID, comment index, and user comment ID to elect the comment for public display.
将评论标记为精选。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| index | Yes | ||
| msg_data_id | Yes | ||
| user_comment_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=false and idempotentHint=false, and the description merely restates the mutation without adding side-effect, permission, or idempotency context. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also adds little behavioral information beyond them.
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 short sentence and is front-loaded, but it is terse to the point of omitting essential guidance. It is concise, yet not appropriately sized for a tool with three required parameters.
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?
An output schema exists and annotations are present, but the description still fails to cover parameter roles, usage context, or expected behavior beyond 'mark as featured'. For a mutation with three required, undocumented parameters, this is not complete enough 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of msg_data_id, index, or user_comment_id. The parameter names are only weakly self-explanatory, and the meaning of index in particular is ambiguous, so the agent lacks enough information to populate them correctly.
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 clear verb and resource: 'mark comment' as 'featured/selected'. This distinguishes it from many unrelated siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with the closely related unmark_comment_elect.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tool unmark_comment_elect exists, but the description offers no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions to help the agent choose correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.