juejin_recommendedDiscover recommended articles from Juejin tech community. Choose hot or newest posts, set result count, and paginate with cursor to browse trending content.
掘金技术社区推荐流文章发现。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sort | No | hot=热门（默认） / new=最新 | hot |
| limit | No | 返回数量，默认 10，最大 20 | |
| cursor | No | 分页游标，首次不传 | 0 |
| 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?
With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool discovers recommended articles; it does not disclose pagination behavior via cursor, the hot/new sort semantics, the default/maximum limit, or whether any rate limits or authentication apply. There is no contradiction, but the behavioral information is minimal.
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 extremely short and contains no waste, but it is under-specified to the point of reading as a tagline rather than a functional description. It lacks the context that could be added in a sentence or two without sacrificing conciseness.
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 input and output schemas cover the mechanics of the call, but the description does not explain how to choose this tool over juejin_by_category, nor does it describe the behavioral flow around pagination or sort modes. For a tool with a direct sibling on the same platform, this is insufficient contextual guidance.
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 input schema provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (sort, limit, cursor), including defaults and constraints. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but with 100% schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 names a concrete resource ('掘金技术社区推荐流文章') and implies an action with '发现', but it is phrased as a noun phrase ('recommended feed article discovery') rather than a clear operational verb like 'List' or 'Fetch'. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool juejin_by_category, relying on '推荐流' to carry that distinction.
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?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool over juejin_by_category, web_search, or other siblings, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The agent is left to infer context entirely from the tool name and input schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.