独行录 / opcmenu

翻某一环的成员（分页）

list_chain_group_members

Idempotent

【需要登录】【何时用】get_chain_anchor 某一类只给了一屏预览，用户想再看几个时。按 groupId 单独翻那一组。

【组合链】get_chain_anchor 拿 groupId + direction → 本工具翻页 → items[].id 再喂回 get_chain_anchor 就是下一跳；items[].id（type=user）→ get_creator → start_conversation。

【口径/坑】 · 游标是 HMAC 签名的、且绑定 profileVersion：nextCursor 必须原样透传，改一个字符就 400 invalid_cursor。 · 撞 409 chain_cursor_stale = 锚点画像在你翻页期间变了（他改了资料/产品）。别拿同一个游标重试，重新调 get_chain_anchor 从第一页来。 · 同样真花钱（每翻一页都是一批 LLM 成对审核），同样别循环翻到底。 · warming=true / supply=warming 时空批只代表「还没判完」；supply=gated 是「判过了，没有一个能证明存在真实价值流」；supply=none 才是「站内确实没有这类主体」。 · pageInfo.total 经常是 null（不穷举 LLM 判定就得不到精确总数）——null 就说不知道，绝不拿当前页长度冒充总量。

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	每页条数，默认 20，最多 50
`cursor`	No	上一页返回的 nextCursor，原样透传
`groupId`	Yes	组 id，从 get_chain_anchor 的 upstream/downstream[].groupId 拿
`direction`	Yes	上游还是下游
`subjectId`	No	锚点 id；留空同上
`subjectType`	No	锚点类型；留空就用我自己的默认锚点（须与拿 groupId 时的锚点一致）

Schema Changelog

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

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

描述补充了大量注解之外的行为：需要登录、游标 HMAC 签名且绑定 profileVersion、修改会 400、撞 409 表示锚点画像变更、每页都会产生 LLM 审核成本、supply 取值口径和 pageInfo.total 可能为 null 且不能拿当前页长度冒充总量。这些与 readOnlyHint=false、openWorldHint=true 一致，无矛盾。

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?

描述分节且要点前置，「需要登录」和「何时用」放在最前，后续用「组合链」「口径/坑」两个小节压缩大量必要信息。每个短句都有信息量，没有冗余，长度与工具的风险面相称。

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?

工具无输出 schema，描述主动说明了 items[].id 的接续用法、supply 不同取值含义、pageInfo.total 的 null 语义和错误恢复路径。既有输入来源说明，也有与上下游工具的配合方式，足以支撑正确调用和结果解释。

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?

输入 schema 已 100% 覆盖参数说明，描述在此基础上进一步补充 cursor 必须原样透传及其签名属性、groupId 从 get_chain_anchor 的 upstream/downstream[].groupId 获取、subjectType 须与取 groupId 时的锚点一致。这些是 schema 没有的操作性语义，因此高于基线。

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?

描述明确说明本工具是「翻某一环的成员（分页）」，并在「何时用」中指出当 get_chain_anchor 只给一屏预览、用户需要按 groupId 单独翻组时使用。动词、资源对象和分页场景都很具体，能与同链路的 get_chain_anchor 清晰区分。

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?

「何时用」直接给出使用场景：get_chain_anchor 只给一屏预览、用户想看更多成员时。「组合链」说明与 get_chain_anchor、get_creator、start_conversation 的衔接方式，并明确列出 409 后不要用同一游标重试、应重新调 get_chain_anchor。使用边界和替代路径都很清楚。

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 tools Inspect

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

A4.1/5.0

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

Need Help?