WeChat Mini Program Dev MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

element_getStyles

Retrieve specific CSS style values from a WeChat Mini Program element by specifying the element selector and an array of style property names.

Instructions

获取元素的样式值。names 为样式名数组（如 ['color', 'fontSize', 'backgroundColor']）。

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>",
      "names": "<names>"
    },
    "name": "element_getStyles"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`connection`	No
`selector`	Yes
`innerSelector`	No
`names`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.2.4May 14, 2026

TDQS

C2.5/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it returns computed styles, possible side effects, or error conditions. The description is minimal and does not help the agent understand tool behavior beyond the basic action.

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 very concise (one short sentence), but it lacks structure. It front-loads the purpose but omits important details. For a single-sentence description, it is efficient but not comprehensive.

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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, nested connection object, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to use the 'connection' parameter, what the return value looks like, or any constraints. The agent would lack sufficient context to use it correctly.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%. The description only explains one of four parameters ('names') with an example. It does not explain 'selector', 'innerSelector', or the complex 'connection' object. The agent would need to infer the meaning from parameter names alone.

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 the tool's purpose: '获取元素的样式值' (get element style values). It specifies the 'names' parameter as an array of style names, differentiating from sibling tools like element_getAttributes or element_getData. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from other getters.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., element_getAttributes for attributes). It does not mention prerequisites or typical use cases. The description is purely functional.

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