Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

独行录 / opcmenu

by io.github.yzlee
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

取分享卡素材

get_share_card_manifest
Read-only

登录;取shareText、link及图片布局,分享前两者；无公开图片URL,勿外发私有渲染接口。对象不存在found=false；card/onboarding非me403。card.need先读needPick.options,auto最近3条/none隐藏/逗号id最多20；丢弃无效或他人id,全无效或等同默认退auto；按发布时间排序,以selected/custom为准；无needPick=无在架需求,其他kind忽略need。

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesowner/need/activity/product传对象id；card/position/onboarding固定me
kindYesowner主理人主页/need需求/activity活动海报/product产品图；card本人名片/position本人定位/onboarding入驻完成
needNo仅card：auto(默认最近3条)/none(隐藏)/逗号id(1~20)；先读needPick.options,结果见selected/custom

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / need / description
      Previous value: -"仅card：auto(默认最近3条)/none(隐藏)/逗号id(1~20)；先读needPick.options，结果见selected/custom"New value: +"仅card：auto(默认最近3条)/none(隐藏)/逗号id(1~20)；先读needPick.options,结果见selected/custom"
  2. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / id / description
      Previous value: -"对象 id：owner=用户 id；need=需求 id；activity=活动 id；product=产品 id；card/position/onboarding 固定 \"me\""New value: +"owner/need/activity/product传对象id；card/position/onboarding固定me"
    • changedInput schema / properties / kind / description
      Previous value: -"分享卡类型：owner 主理人主页（id=用户 id） | need 需求（id=需求 id） | card 我的个人名片（id 固定 \"me\"） | position 我的定位卡（id 固定 \"me\"） | onboarding 入驻完成（id 固定 \"me\"） | activity 活动海报（id=活动 id） | product 产品分享图（id=产品 id）"New value: +"owner主理人主页/need需求/activity活动海报/product产品图；card本人名片/position本人定位/onboarding入驻完成"
    • changedInput schema / properties / need / description
      Previous value: -"仅 kind=card 生效：名片上展示哪些需求。\"auto\"（缺省，最近 3 条）| \"none\"（不展示需求）| 逗号分隔的需求 id（1~20 个，只展示这几条）。可选项见返回的 manifest.needPick.options[].id，实际生效见 manifest.needPick.custom / selected"New value: +"仅card：auto(默认最近3条)/none(隐藏)/逗号id(1~20)；先读needPick.options，结果见selected/custom"
  3. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / need / description
      Previous value: -"仅 kind=card 生效：名片上展示哪条需求。\"auto\"（缺省，最近 3 条）| \"none\"（不展示需求）| 需求 id（只展示这一条）。可选值见返回的 manifest.needs.choices[].value"New value: +"仅 kind=card 生效：名片上展示哪些需求。\"auto\"（缺省，最近 3 条）| \"none\"（不展示需求）| 逗号分隔的需求 id（1~20 个，只展示这几条）。可选项见返回的 manifest.needPick.options[].id，实际生效见 manifest.needPick.custom / selected"
    • changedInput schema / properties / need / maxLength
      Previous value: -64New value: +900
  4. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / need
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "仅 kind=card 生效：名片上展示哪条需求。\"auto\"（缺省，最近 3 条）| \"none\"（不展示需求）| 需求 id（只展示这一条）。可选值见返回的 manifest.needs.choices[].value",
+  "maxLength": 64,
+  "type": "string"
+}
  5. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / id / description
      Previous value: -"对象 id：owner=用户 id；need=需求 id；onboarding 固定 \"me\""New value: +"对象 id：owner=用户 id；need=需求 id；activity=活动 id；product=产品 id；card/position/onboarding 固定 \"me\""
    • changedInput schema / properties / kind / description
      Previous value: -"分享卡类型：owner 主理人主页（id=用户 id） | need 需求（id=需求 id） | card 我的个人名片（id 固定 \"me\"） | position 我的定位卡（id 固定 \"me\"） | onboarding 入驻完成（id 固定 \"me\"）"New value: +"分享卡类型：owner 主理人主页（id=用户 id） | need 需求（id=需求 id） | card 我的个人名片（id 固定 \"me\"） | position 我的定位卡（id 固定 \"me\"） | onboarding 入驻完成（id 固定 \"me\"） | activity 活动海报（id=活动 id） | product 产品分享图（id=产品 id）"
    • changedInput schema / properties / kind / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "owner",
-  "need",
-  "onboarding",
-  "card",
-  "position",
-  "activity"
-]New value: +[
+  "owner",
+  "need",
+  "onboarding",
+  "card",
+  "position",
+  "activity",
+  "product"
+]
  6. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds substantial behavior on top: login is required, missing objects return found=false, card/onboarding with a non-'me' id returns 403, and the image layout must not be sent through private render endpoints because no public URL exists. That is auth requirement, error semantics, and a data-handling constraint — well beyond the single annotation.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Content is dense and front-loads the return artifacts and sharing rule, which is good. But the bulk is one semicolon-delimited run of clauses mixing auth, errors, and a multi-branch selection algorithm, making it hard to scan. Every clause carries information, yet the structure could be broken into distinct lines for readability.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey returns, and it does: shareText, link, image layout, found flag, and needPick/selected/custom behavior. Error paths are covered too. The precise shape of the image layout object is not decomposed, which keeps it from a 5 for a no-output-schema tool.

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 real meaning: for card.need it specifies that needPick.options should be read first, auto resolves to the 3 most recent, none hides, comma-separated ids cap at 20, invalid or other-owner ids are discarded, full-invalid falls back to auto, ordering follows publish time with selected/custom taking precedence, and other kinds ignore need entirely. That exceeds what the schema states.

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 opening '取shareText、link及图片布局' states a specific verb + set of returned artifacts for a share-card manifest, which is more precise than the generic title 取分享卡素材. It also implies the downstream action ('分享前两者'), so an agent can infer the pre-share role. It stops short of naming send_share_card explicitly, so sibling differentiation is only implied.

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?

Usage context is implied ('分享前两者' suggests this is the step before sharing, and the note about not exposing the private render interface scopes what may be shared). However there is no explicit 'use this when X, use send_share_card when Y' routing. The error notes (403 for card/onboarding non-me) tell the agent when a call will fail, not when to prefer an alternative.

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
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources