Skip to main content
Glama

独行录 / opcmenu

我的定位(五级主线 + 六维 + 任务)

get_my_positioning
Idempotent

【需要登录】【何时用】用户问「我现在到哪一步了」「接下来该干嘛」「帮我把这周能做的都做了」。返回五级主线的当前等级、六维画像、称号与总分,以及全部任务的完成态与 nextUp(最该做的三件事)。

【组合链·代办】nextUp 里每条任务都带 suggestedTool——这是 agent 面相对 App 的关键差别:App 的 CTA 只能把人跳到那一屏让他自己动手,你能直接把这件事做完。 对照表: · 写「我能提供什么」/ 一句话说清项目 → update_my_profile(canOffer)(partner.can_offer 与 funding.one_liner 两条任务判的就是 User.canOffer 的字数,分别 ≥30 / ≥20 字,写虚了过不了) · 融资资料、轮次金额、传 BP → set_my_role_profile(fundraising) · 邀请同行 → get_my_invite · 发需求(招兼职 / 找合伙人 / 找资源)→ create_need · 发布产品 → create_product · 归位产业链 → set_my_chain_position · 看看我的名片长什么样 → get_my_card;去回消息 → list_my_conversations 用户说「把这周能做的都做了」就真的一条条做完再汇报,别只念清单。

【口径/坑】 · 本工具会刷新你的定位快照(写 PositioningState:算分快照 + auto 任务的完成戳),所以它不是纯读工具,别当免费接口循环调。只想看个大概用 get_my_brief。 · level.source='declared'(用户自报)永远优先于 inferred(LLM 读证据判的)/ observed(确定性兜底)。要改自报值走 set_my_role_profile(venture.stage)。 · basis / signals / confidence 是 LLM 给的判词,转述它,别自己另判一个等级,更别说「我觉得你其实已经到 XX 了」。 · 任务只增不减:达标那刻盖戳,之后数据回落也不打回未完成(用户不会莫名其妙掉级)。 · 默认裁掉全部 39 条任务的培训正文(guide),否则一次调用几万 token。真要看某一条的正文:includeGuides=true 且必须同时给 taskKey,只取那一条。 · verify='manual' 的任务平台观测不到,要用 mark_positioning_task 自报打勾。

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
taskKeyNo只看某一条任务(配合 includeGuides 取它的培训正文)
includeGuidesNo是否带回培训正文 guide,默认 false。设 true 时**必须同时给 taskKey**,且只返回那一条的正文

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond annotations by disclosing that this tool refreshes the positioning snapshot and writes PositioningState, so it is not a pure read tool and should not be called in a loop. It also explains level precedence (declared > inferred > observed), the monotonicity of task completion, the default omission of guides, and the instruction to rephrase LLM judgments rather than inventing levels. These are meaningful behavioral disclosures.

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?

The description is long but densely organized with clear sections: when to use, the agent-vs-App differentiation, a concrete tool mapping table, and pitfalls. It is front-loaded with the most important trigger phrases and alternative routing, and every section adds operational value.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's complexity, the absence of an output schema, and the subtle side effects, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is returned, how to interpret levels, how to handle nextUp items, which sibling tools to call, what parameters are required together, and which tasks require manual verification via mark_positioning_task.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds valuable context: includeGuides=true must be paired with taskKey, only that one guide is returned, and all 39 guides are stripped by default to avoid tens of thousands of tokens per call. This is more actionable than the bare schema descriptions.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: it returns the current five-level main storyline position, six-dimension profile, title and total score, plus all task completion states and nextUp. It also names the user queries that should trigger this tool, which makes it easy to distinguish from get_my_brief and 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 Guidelines5/5

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

Usage guidance is explicit: it gives the exact user-phrase triggers, names get_my_brief as the lightweight alternative, and provides a detailed mapping from nextUp items to sibling tools like update_my_profile, set_my_role_profile, get_my_invite, create_need, create_product, set_my_chain_position, get_my_card, and list_my_conversations. It even tells the agent to execute the tasks rather than just read the list.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Each tool has a clearly documented purpose, often with explicit 'when to use' guidance and cross-references, making the vast majority easy to tell apart. A few clusters (get_my_brief, get_my_positioning, get_my_work, get_my_dispatch) and data-overlapping get_my_card vs get_my_profile require careful reading, but descriptions are detailed enough to prevent serious misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

The overwhelming majority follow snake_case verb_noun conventions (create_product, update_need, list_my_signups). Minor deviations include noun-only feed names (personalized_feed, random_feed), inconsistency between 'prefs' and 'preferences' in notification tools, and a mix of update_* and set_* for mutations, but the pattern remains predictable overall.

Tool Count1/5

137 tools is an extreme mismatch for any MCP server, far exceeding the 50+ threshold for a score of 1. Even with a broad multi-domain platform, this volume makes tool selection and navigation impractical and heavily burdens the agent's context window.

Completeness5/5

The surface covers full lifecycles for needs, products, activities/signups, conversations, collaboration goals/tasks, dispatch, profile/onboarding, and supporting resources like companies, parks, policies, and ratings. Deliberate omissions (no user-post creation, no organizer profile editing via agent) are explicitly documented, so core workflows have no obvious dead ends.

Resources