Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
WeChat Mini Program Dev MCP

WeChat Mini Program Dev MCP

by yfmeii
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

element_getData

Retrieve rendered data from a custom component instance in WeChat Mini Programs, enabling inspection of its current state.

Instructions

获取组件实例渲染数据，仅自定义组件可以使用。

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "selector": "<selector>"
    },
    "name": "element_getData"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
connectionNo
selectorYes
innerSelectorNo
pathNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.2.4
  2. Removedv0.1.6
  3. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.0.0
    • addedInput schema / $schema
      Added value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  4. First observed

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, or error conditions. It only implies a read operation but lacks explicit details.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence that communicates the core purpose efficiently without waste. However, it could include more detail without becoming overly long.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of the input schema (nested object, 4 parameters) and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain parameters, output, or behavior, leaving significant gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the use or meaning of any parameters (connection, selector, innerSelector, path). This leaves the agent without guidance on how to populate them.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states that the tool gets component instance rendering data and specifies it is only for custom components, which helps differentiate it from sibling tools. However, 'rendering data' is vague.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides a constraint (only custom components) but no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like element_getAttributes or element_getStyles. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools