Get the complete text of a Juejin (掘金) post by providing its juejin.cn or article.juejin.cn/post/ URL, returning the full article content instead of a search snippet.
Fetch full article content from a Juejin(掘金) post URL (juejin.cn or article.juejin.cn /post/ only; for other sites use fetchWebContent)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the exact URL scope and that it fetches full article content, going beyond the annotations. It does not contradict annotations.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the action and immediately provides the critical scoping and alternative. Zero waste; every clause earns its place.
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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering side effects, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what URLs to use, what it does, and what to do otherwise. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.
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 coverage is 0% and there is only one parameter (url). The description compensates fully by specifying the exact URL formats allowed (juejin.cn or article.juejin.cn /post/ only), which the schema's generic 'uri' format does not convey. This is precise and actionable.
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 uses a specific verb (fetch) and resource (full article content from a Juejin post URL), and explicitly scopes it to juejin.cn or article.juejin.cn /post/ URLs. It clearly differentiates from siblings by naming the alternative for other sites.
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?
It explicitly states when to use this tool (Juejin post URLs) and when not (for other sites use fetchWebContent), providing an unambiguous routing condition. No inference needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.