Verify element text content in WeChat mini-programs using exact, regex, or contains matching to validate UI state.
断言元素文本内容
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | No | 精确匹配的文本 | |
| target | Yes | ||
| textMatches | No | 正则表达式匹配 | |
| textContains | No | 包含的文本 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| code | Yes | ||
| data | Yes | ||
| meta | Yes | ||
| error | Yes | ||
| warnings | Yes | ||
| nextActions | Yes | ||
| observation | Yes | ||
| partialData | Yes | ||
| schemaVersion | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that text content is asserted, but does not explain what happens on mismatch, whether the assertion waits for a condition, whether it throws, or whether it supports the different matching semantics visible in the schema.
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 extremely short, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It does not earn its place because it adds almost no information beyond the tool name, lacking the specifics that would justify its existence.
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?
This is a complex tool with a rich target schema and three distinct text-matching modes, yet the description provides none of that context. With no annotations and no behavioral guidance, an agent cannot fully understand how to construct a correct call from the description alone.
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 high (75%) and the parameters text, textMatches, textContains, and target all have meaningful descriptions. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter semantics adequately.
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 '断言元素文本内容' ('assert element text content') is essentially a direct restatement of the tool name assert_text, adding only the word 'element'. It does not differentiate the tool from siblings like assert_attribute or assert_state, and it does not mention the important matching modes (exact, regex, contains) that the schema exposes.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description simply states the action without any context that would help an agent select it over assert_attribute, assert_state, or wait_for.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.