Lists supported social media platforms and their read capabilities and limits, helping agents check sources and post types before searching. Declarations do not confirm real account verification.
查看候选读取能力及限制。声明不代表真实账号验证通过。
| 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 this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world lookup, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful caveat that the listed capabilities are declarative and not real account verification, but it gives no detail on return shape, pagination, or limits.
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?
Two short sentences with no wasted words, which is appropriately sized for a simple lookup. However, the lead sentence is so vague that it does not front-load a usable purpose, and the second sentence reads as a cryptic disclaimer.
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?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema and rich annotations, the description still leaves the core meaning of 'candidate read capabilities' unexplained. It does not say what platforms or capabilities are returned, what the limitations are, or how this relates to connection_status.
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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies per the rubric. The description does not add parameter meaning, but none is needed for a parameterless tool.
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 says it shows 'candidate read capabilities and limitations,' which is vague and never states that this lists available platforms. It neither names the resource clearly nor distinguishes the tool from siblings such as connection_status, so an agent cannot confidently tell what it returns.
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 when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no mention of alternatives like connection_status or search. The agent is left to infer when this tool should be selected over its siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.