Retrieve the value or text content of a specified element in a WeChat mini-program, using a locator path or snapshot reference to identify the target.
获取元素的值或文本内容
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | Yes | ||
| attribute | No | 要获取的属性名，不指定则获取value或text |
| 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 restates the generic read operation and does not mention whether the tool waits for the element, how it handles no-match or multiple-match cases, or that it is read-only.
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 sentence with no wasted words and the core operation is front-loaded. It is concise to the point of under-specification, but it does not suffer from verbosity or structural disorganization.
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?
The target parameter is quite complex, offering ref and path locator modes with nested selector types, and there are no annotations to cover safety or behavioral context. Since an output schema exists, return-value details are not required, but the description still fails to provide guidance on choosing target modes or anticipating behavior in edge cases.
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 description adds almost no parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides; the 'value or text' behavior is already explained in the attribute parameter description ('不指定则获取value或text'). With schema coverage at 50%, the description should help disambiguate the two target modes (ref vs path), but it does not.
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 Chinese description '获取元素的值或文本内容' clearly states a specific operation (get) on a specific resource (an element's value or text). It is distinct enough from mutation tools like click and input_text, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling read/assert tools such as assert_text or assert_attribute.
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 guidance on when to use get_value versus assert_text, assert_attribute, find_elements, or get_page_snapshot. An agent must infer the use case from the tool name and schema rather than from explicit usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.