Skip to main content
Glama

独行录 / opcmenu

批量算「还差哪几题」

get_signup_gaps
Read-onlyIdempotent

【需要登录】【何时用】用户想一口气报好几场(或问「我现在能报的都缺什么」)时调它。这是 agent 独有、App 永远不会有的接口:一次算完多场的缺口,并把同一个题目跨场去重合并——「姓名、微信、一句话项目介绍」问一遍就够,不用一场问一遍。

【组合链】① 不传 slugs 就自动取 list_signup_feed 前 N 场我还没报的;② 拿 missingCombined 一轮问完用户;③ 通用项 update_my_signup_profile 一次落库;④ 逐场 submit_signup(这时基本零缺口)。想看某一场的完整题面再 get_signup_activity。

【口径/坑】① missingCombined 里每项带 activities=[这几场都要],问一次可以覆盖多场——别自己在上下文里做集合运算,那既费 token 又容易漏。② fillable=false 的项是附件题,agent 传不了,只能提示用户去报名页/App 传。③ 已报过的场次(submitted=true)默认不进结果,除非显式点名在 slugs 里。④ 一次最多 10 场,服务端分批取,别指望它当全站扫描器用。

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindNo不传 slugs 时按类目取。取值:HACKATHON(黑客松) | COMPETITION(创业赛事) | INCUBATOR(孵化营) | FUNDING(融资申请) | COMMUNITY(社区入驻) | EVENT(活动报名) | OTHER(其他)
limitNo不传 slugs 时取几场,缺省 5,上限 10
slugsNo要盘的活动 slug 列表,最多 10 个;不传就取 list_signup_feed 前 limit 场里我还没报的

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?

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description discloses login requirements, cross-activity deduplication behavior, fillable=false attachment semantics, exclusion of submitted activities, the 10-activity limit, server-side batching, and explicitly warns the agent not to perform set operations manually. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral context.

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 dense but well-structured with clear headers (需要登录/何时用, 组合链, 口径/坑) and front-loaded use cases. Every sentence carries actionable information; the length is justified by the tool's complexity and the need to prevent common agent mistakes.

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 and absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers return semantics (missingCombined with activities), edge cases (fillable=false, submitted=true), scope limits, and the downstream workflow. An agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly and interpret its results.

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 already 100%, so the parameters are documented. The description adds important semantics beyond the schema: omitting slugs auto-selects unsubmitted activities from list_signup_feed, limit defaults to 5, and the 10-activity cap is tied to server-side batching. This meaningfully enriches the schema.

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 clearly states the tool computes gaps across multiple signup activities at once and deduplicates common questions, which goes well beyond the name. It also explicitly contrasts with get_signup_activity for viewing a single activity's full question set, making the tool's purpose and boundaries unambiguous.

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?

The 何时用 section gives explicit trigger conditions: the user wants to batch-sign-up or asks what is missing across all signable activities. The 组合链 section specifies the exact workflow with list_signup_feed, update_my_signup_profile, and submit_signup, and names get_signup_activity as the alternative when a single activity's full form is needed.

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