Skip to main content
Glama

WhyLingxi 保险顾问 Insurance Advisor

by cn.whylingxi

recommend

根据用户画像推荐保险方案（核心工具）。信息不全也可调用——返回最佳推荐+缺失字段提示。传入health_conditions自动附带核保结论。默认纯数据模式(<100ms)，设include_reasoning:true生成自然语言理由(+3s)。

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ageYes年龄（必填）
needsNo需求列表，如["重疾保障","医疗报销","意外防护"]
budgetNo年预算（元）
genderNo
family_roleNo被保人角色
occupation_classNo职业类别(1-6类)
existing_coverageNo已有保障，如["百万医疗","意外险"]
health_conditionsNo既往症，如["高血压2级","甲状腺结节"]
include_reasoningNo是否生成LLM推荐理由（默认false，Agent调用无需开启；设true适用于直接面向人类展示）
has_social_securityNo是否有社保

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

未提供注释，描述承担全部责任。披露了默认纯数据模式和推理模式延迟、健康条件自动核保、缺失字段提示等行为。

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

Conciseness5/5

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

四句中文，先阐明目的再说明关键行为，无冗余，信息密度高。

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

Completeness3/5

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

未输出模式，描述仅提及返回最佳推荐和缺失字段提示，未说明输出结构或格式，对10个参数的组合用例覆盖不足。

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

Parameters4/5

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

90%模式覆盖率下，描述对health_conditions和include_reasoning增加了模式未涵盖的行为说明（核保结论、延迟信息），新增价值明显。

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

Purpose5/5

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

明确说明根据用户画像推荐保险方案，并自称核心工具。与搜索、比较等兄弟工具区分明显。

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

说明即使信息不全也可调用，以及include_reasoning的用途，但未明确何时替代兄弟工具或何时不应调用。

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

All WhyLingxi 保险顾问 Insurance Advisor toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: answer_question handles factual queries, chat manages multi-turn dialogue, check_underwriting assesses health risks, compare_products compares specific products, get_premium provides precise pricing, get_product_detail retrieves product info, get_schema guides strategy, recommend gives tailored plans, and search_products filters by criteria. No two tools overlap in functionality.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., answer_question, check_underwriting, compare_products, get_premium, get_product_detail). The few single-word tools (chat, recommend) are common exceptions that still convey action clearly.

Tool Count5/5

With 9 tools, the server is well-scoped for an insurance advisor. Each tool serves a necessary function—knowledge retrieval, chat, underwriting, comparison, pricing, details, meta-guidance, recommendation, and search—without redundancy or bloat.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers the full lifecycle of insurance advisory: product discovery (search, detail, compare), pricing (get_premium), risk assessment (check_underwriting), recommendation (recommend), knowledge support (answer_question), and user guidance (chat, get_schema). No obvious gaps remain for typical use cases.

Resources