Skip to main content
Glama
Micro66

daily-hot-mcp

by Micro66
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

daily-hot-mcp

测试 MCP Server（standalone）：测试数据查询，并提供 高性能内存 TTL 缓存（可配置缓存时间）。

依赖

  • Node.js >= 20（建议 22+）

Related MCP server: Daily Hots MCP

运行方式

构建并启动 MCP：

cd ../daily-hot-mcp
npm i
npm run build
npm run start

环境变量

  • DAILY_HOT_CACHE_TTL_MS：默认缓存毫秒数，默认 60000

  • DAILY_HOT_TIMEOUT_MS：请求超时毫秒数，默认 10000

  • DAILY_HOT_MAX_CONCURRENCY：批量请求最大并发，默认 6

MCP Tools

  • daily_hot_list_sources：列出全部热榜来源（30 个）

  • daily_hot_get：获取单个来源热榜（支持 cacheTtlMs / forceRefresh / limit）

  • daily_hot_get_multi：批量获取多个来源热榜

  • daily_hot_cache_stats：查看缓存命中统计

  • daily_hot_cache_clear：清空缓存

Claude Desktop 配置示例

把下面添加到你的 claude_desktop_config.json（按需调整路径）：

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "daily-hot": {
      "command": "node",
      "args": ["/ABSOLUTE/PATH/TO/daily-hot-mcp/dist/index.js"],
      "env": {
        "DAILY_HOT_CACHE_TTL_MS": "60000"
      }
    }
  }
}

用 MCP Inspector 测试（Web UI）

先构建：

npm run build

再启动 Inspector（建议给 npx 单独指定可写缓存目录，避免 ~/.npm 权限问题）：

mkdir -p .npm-cache
NPM_CONFIG_CACHE="$PWD/.npm-cache" npx -y @modelcontextprotocol/inspector --config ./mcp_config.json

⚠️ 免责声明

⚠️ 重要提醒：请仔细阅读以下声明

📋 使用条款

  1. 数据来源：本项目通过公开 API 和网页抓取获取数据，仅供学习和研究使用

  2. 合规使用：用户需遵守各平台的使用条款和相关法律法规

  3. 商业使用：禁止将本项目用于任何商业用途

  4. 数据准确性：不保证数据的实时性和准确性

🛡️ 责任限制

  • 本项目仅供技术研究和学习交流使用

  • 任何因使用本项目产生的法律风险由使用者自行承担

  • 如有平台方要求移除相关接口，请及时联系我们处理

  • 项目维护者不承担任何直接或间接的损失责任

Available Tools

5 tools
daily_hot_cache_clearA

清空内存缓存。

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No parameters

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'clear memory cache' without details on scope (e.g., all cached data?), persistence, side effects, or any confirmation needed for destructive action.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single short phrase with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. However, for a destructive operation like clearing cache, more context about return values or effects would be beneficial. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, but no additional parameter information is needed. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for no-parameter tools.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description '清空内存缓存' clearly states the tool clears the memory cache, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'daily_hot_cache_stats' (stats), 'daily_hot_get' (retrieve), and 'daily_hot_list_sources' (list sources) by indicating a clearing operation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or relationship to the sibling cache tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

daily_hot_cache_statsA

查看内存缓存命中/写入统计。

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No parameters

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The word '查看' (view) indicates read-only behavior, disclosing non-destructive nature, though no annotations exist.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One short, focused sentence with no unnecessary words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Adequate for a zero-parameter stats tool, though output format or metric scope could be specified.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

No parameters exist, so baseline 4 applies; description adds no param info, which is acceptable.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description '查看内存缓存命中/写入统计' clearly states it is for viewing cache hit/write statistics, distinguishing it from sibling tools like clear, get, and list.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies use when cache statistics are needed, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

daily_hot_getB

获取指定来源的热榜数据（MCP standalone 直连各平台源站）。支持 TTL 缓存、可选强制刷新。

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo可选：只返回前 N 条
sourceYes来源 id，例如 weibo / zhihu / bilibili
timeoutMsNo可选：请求超时（默认 10000ms）
cacheTtlMsNo可选：覆盖默认缓存时间（默认 60000ms）
forceRefreshNo可选：忽略缓存，强制回源获取

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description should disclose side effects and behavior. It mentions TTL caching and forced refresh but omits that this is a read-only operation, any rate limits, or authentication needs. The description is insufficiently transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and to the point, front-loading the core purpose. It could be slightly more structured but remains efficient with no wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the lack of output schema and 5 parameters, the description does not cover return format, error handling, or prerequisites (e.g., valid source from list_sources). The tool has moderate complexity, and the description is incomplete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

All parameters are described in the input schema with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema for parameters like limit, source, timeoutMs, cacheTtlMs, and forceRefresh. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves hot list data for a specified source, with explicit mention of standalone direct connection and caching. The tool name 'daily_hot_get' and sibling 'daily_hot_get_multi' make it clear this is for a single source.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., get_multi for multiple sources, cache_clear for cache management). The description lacks exclusions or context for selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

daily_hot_get_multiA

批量获取多个来源的热榜（并发可控 + TTL 缓存）。单个来源失败不会影响其它来源。

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sourcesYes来源 id 列表
timeoutMsNo默认 10000ms
cacheTtlMsNo默认 60000ms
concurrencyNo可选：最大并发（默认 6）
forceRefreshNo可选：忽略缓存，强制回源获取

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description reasonably covers key behaviors: concurrency control, TTL caching, and per-source failure isolation. It does not mention rate limits or auth requirements, but provides essential usage context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, each delivering critical information: core functionality and a key behavioral note. No extraneous words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the parameter richness and lack of output schema, the description covers the main behavioral aspects. Missing details like result structure or source limits, but sufficient for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. The description adds contextual value (concurrency, caching) but does not elaborate on parameter specifics beyond what is in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the tool as batch retrieval of hot lists from multiple sources with concurrency control and TTL caching. It distinguishes from siblings like daily_hot_get (single source) and cache management tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies use for multiple sources, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives. It provides valuable context about concurrency, caching, and error isolation, aiding appropriate tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

daily_hot_list_sourcesA

列出 next-daily-hot 支持的全部热榜来源（id/label/tip）。

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No parameters

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description implies a read-only operation by using 'list', but does not explicitly state non-destructive nature or other behavioral traits. With no annotations, more explicit disclosure would be beneficial.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence with no extraneous information; highly concise and efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a parameterless listing tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and what information it returns.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema has no parameters and description does not need to add meaning; baseline 4 for 0-param tools.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool lists all hot list sources from next-daily-hot, specifying the fields (id/label/tip). This distinguishes it from cache and get siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit usage context or alternatives provided. It's implied to be used before fetching data, but no guidance on when to use versus siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 5 tool updatesv0.1.0
    • First observeddaily_hot_cache_clear
    • First observeddaily_hot_cache_stats
    • First observeddaily_hot_get
    • First observeddaily_hot_get_multi
    • First observeddaily_hot_list_sources
Deploy Server
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

TDQS

A4/5.0

Scored across 5 tools

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: cache management (clear/stats), single-source retrieval, multi-source retrieval, and source listing. No overlap or ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent snake_case pattern with the prefix 'daily_hot_' and verb_noun structure (e.g., daily_hot_get, daily_hot_list_sources). No naming irregularities.

Tool Count5/5

With 5 tools covering core operations (list sources, get single/multiple, cache management), the count is well-scoped for the server's purpose—neither too sparse nor excessive.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers all essential operations: source enumeration, data retrieval (single and batch), and cache introspection/control. No obvious gaps for the intended use case.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • MCP Hot News Server

    wudalu
    A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    A modern multi-platform hot news aggregation server based on FastMCP that supports real-time hot topics data collection from 13+ major platforms including Zhihu, Weibo, Baidu, and Bilibili.
    3
    MIT

  • Daily Hots MCP

    fancyboi999
    A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    A Python-based MCP server that aggregates real-time trending topics and news from over 30 sources including social media, technology, and finance platforms. It enables AI applications to retrieve the latest hot searches and news from major services like Weibo, Baidu, and IT Home through a unified interface.
    31
    MIT

  • whatshot-mcp

    RayLLLU
    F
    license
    A
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    MCP server for WhatsHot API providing read-only access to aggregated hotlists, news flashes, and gold prices, with tools to fetch current data, query history, search, and get trends.
    7
    1
    -