juejin_by_categoryBrowse Juejin articles by category, including AI, frontend, backend, Android, iOS, freebie, and article. Specify a category and optional limit to retrieve relevant posts.
按分类浏览掘金文章（ai / frontend / backend / android / ios / freebie / article）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | 返回数量，默认 10，最大 20 | |
| category | Yes | 分类名 |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It only restates the browse action and does not mention sorting, result shape, pagination, rate limits, or empty/error behavior. This is minimal transparency.
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 efficient sentence with a parenthetical list of categories. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, so every part 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?
An output schema exists, so return values do not need explanation. The description plus the input schema is adequate for a simple two-parameter call, but it lacks behavioral context and sibling differentiation, which matters because no annotations are present.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by listing valid category values (ai/frontend/backend/android/ios/freebie/article), which the schema does not enumerate. Limit semantics are already covered by the schema's default and maximum.
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 ('浏览'/browse) and resource ('掘金文章' Juejin articles), and it enumerates the supported categories. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like juejin_recommended, so it misses the top bar.
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 phrase '按分类浏览' implies category-based browsing, but there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as juejin_recommended or fetch_hot_topics. Context is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.