Get a login ticket valid for two hours to authenticate with WeChat Developer Tools, enabling secure automation of mini-programs.
获取开发者工具登录票据（有效期两小时）
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_ticket"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the valuable trait that the ticket is valid for two hours, but does not mention whether the ticket is newly generated each time, whether it can expire, or what the return format is. Partial transparency is shown.
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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and includes a parenthetical detail about validity. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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?
Despite having no parameters and no output schema, the description conveys the core purpose and the two-hour validity, which is sufficient context for a simple tool. It could mention the relationship with refresh_ticket, but overall it provides adequate context for the tool's complexity.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter meanings since none exist. It adds no misleading information.
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 the action 'get' and the resource 'developer tool login ticket', and adds a validity period. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_ticket and refresh_ticket, making the purpose unmistakable.
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 usage when a login ticket is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_ticket or refresh_ticket. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, so the usage context is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.