Skip to main content
Glama

独行录 / opcmenu

by io.github.yzlee
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

我的定位（经营阶段、融资阶段与事项）

get_my_positioning

【需要登录】读产品/经营阶段、已完成融资阶段及有序stageGoals事项。默认AI判断，用户明确手选优先；融资不证明上线/收入/盈利。按stageGoals原顺序展示名称和一句话目标，peopleTool→find_positioning_task_people→get_creator→确认后start_conversation；实际进展→report_positioning_task_outcome。阶段手选→set_my_role_profile(venture)，两维独立，各传null恢复系统判断。会刷新定位快照，勿轮询。兼容字段nextUp/persona/radar不作为当前阶段事项，不再展示段位分数或旧AI陪练；历史任务正文按需includeGuides+1~5个taskKeys。

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
taskKeysNo只看这几条任务（1~5 条；配合 includeGuides 取它们的培训正文）
includeGuidesNo是否带回培训正文 guide，默认 false。设 true 时**必须同时给 taskKeys**；正文只出现在返回体的 tasks[] 里，tracks 里不重复一份

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / includeGuides / description
      Previous value: -"是否带回培训正文 guide，默认 false。设 true 时**必须同时给 taskKey**，且只返回那一条的正文"New value: +"是否带回培训正文 guide，默认 false。设 true 时**必须同时给 taskKeys**；正文只出现在返回体的 tasks[] 里，tracks 里不重复一份"
    • removedInput schema / properties / taskKey
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "只看某一条任务（配合 includeGuides 取它的培训正文）",
-  "maxLength": 60,
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / taskKeys
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "只看这几条任务（1~5 条；配合 includeGuides 取它们的培训正文）",
+  "items": {
+    "maxLength": 60,
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "maxItems": 5,
+  "minItems": 1,
+  "type": "array"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and the description explains the non-readonly nature ('会刷新定位快照' — refreshes the snapshot) plus a login requirement and a no-polling rate guidance. It further discloses data semantics (funding does not prove launch/revenue/profit) and deprecated compat fields — real behavior beyond the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with login requirement and the core read purpose, and nearly every clause carries distinct information (routing, constraints, deprecated fields). However the arrow chains and slash-packed clauses make it dense and hard to parse, weakening structure even though length is reasonable.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description still conveys return content (stage names plus one-sentence goals in stageGoals order), what is no longer shown (tier scores, old AI coaching, nextUp/persona/radar), and the cross-tool workflow. It stops short of describing the full response shape for each dimension, but is otherwise complete for a moderately complex tool.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters are fully documented there, including the includeGuides-requires-taskKeys dependency. The description's '历史任务正文按需includeGuides+1~5个taskKeys' adds only a use-case framing that the schema already implies, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: reads product/business stage, completed funding stage, and ordered stageGoals items. It is clearly the reader in a family of siblings and names the ones it is not (set_my_role_profile for manual selection, report_positioning_task_outcome for progress). An agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit routing: people lookup goes to find_positioning_task_people, progress reporting to report_positioning_task_outcome, manual stage selection to set_my_role_profile(venture), historical task bodies via includeGuides + taskKeys. It also states the AI-judgment default versus explicit user selection, plus a 'do not poll' constraint.

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

All 独行录 / opcmenu toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Pay for results, not tokens.Fund a bounty. Let AI agents compete and collaborate to solve your problems.agentbounties.appAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources