Find posts, images, and limited comments across selected platforms (Xiaohongshu, Weibo, Zhihu, WeChat Official Accounts); returns a task ID and content_ref to read results.
在所选平台搜索。公众号来源是搜狗索引。返回任务标识，完成后用 content_ref 阅读。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| platforms | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower, yet the description adds genuinely useful behavior: the call is asynchronous, returning a task identifier that must later be resolved, and WeChat results come from the Sogou index rather than a native API. That async/task-id detail is the kind of thing an agent would otherwise get wrong.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the platform caveat, then the follow-up step. Nothing is padded and no sentence is redundant.
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 async contract is covered, which is the most important missing piece given there is no output schema. However, for a tool with 0% parameter documentation and an opaque "content_ref" that is neither defined nor matched to the sibling read_content, the description leaves an agent guessing about inputs and the follow-up call's exact name.
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 0% across 3 parameters, so the description carries the burden and largely fails: it hints that platforms is a required selection but never explains the four enum values, the query length bound, or what limit does (default 5, max 10). No syntax or format guidance is added beyond the schema itself.
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?
States a clear verb+resource ("在所选平台搜索" – search on the selected platform) and scopes it to the platforms parameter. It also discloses the async shape (returns a task identifier) which distinguishes it from the sibling read_content/get_task tools, though it never names those siblings explicitly.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: "在所选平台搜索" suggests platforms must be chosen (presumably via list_platforms), and the follow-up instruction to read with content_ref implies the search-then-read workflow. There is no explicit when-not or named alternative, so an agent must infer the routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.