Skip to main content
Glama

独行录 / opcmenu

查看我的交流请求

list_connection_requests
Read-onlyIdempotent

【需要登录】按方向/场景分页查本人交流请求,重验可见性、屏蔽与状态,无联系方式。与合作方案请求、协助联系申请不同,不混用id。

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cursorNo
directionNoall
activityIdNo
organizationIdNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

注解已交代 readOnly/idempotent/openWorld,描述额外补充了注解未覆盖的行为:需要登录鉴权、结果会重验可见性/屏蔽/状态(即返回项受这些规则过滤)、且不含联系方式。这些是描述相对注解的净增值,但对分页行为(cursor 语义、页大小)未提及。

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?

单段紧凑,前置了最关键的"需要登录",随后依次给出范围、行为约束与工具区分,信息密度高、无冗余句。可读性因密集堆叠而略受影响,但中文表达下仍属精炼。

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

Completeness3/5

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

无输出 schema,参数覆盖率 0%,描述覆盖了鉴权、过滤行为、结果约束与兄弟工具区分,对列表工具而言信息量尚可。但未解释 activityId/organizationId 这一"场景"过滤维度的含义与优先级,也未说明分页游标使用方式,面向 4 参数工具仍略显不足。

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 描述覆盖率 0%,4 个参数(cursor/direction/activityId/organizationId)在 schema 中完全无说明,描述需承担解释责任。描述以"方向/场景/分页"暗示了 direction、activityId/organizationId 与 cursor 的用途,部分补偿了覆盖缺口,但未给出取值(除 all/incoming/outgoing 外)或 cursor 格式。

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?

明确声明动词+资源("查本人交流请求"),并限定范围(本人、按方向/场景分页),agent 无需打开 schema 即可判断其与 get_connection_request 这类单条查询的区别。更进一步点名了两个易混淆的兄弟工具(合作方案请求、协助联系申请)并声明不混用 id。

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

给出了使用前提"需要登录",并通过"与合作方案请求、协助联系申请不同,不混用id"显式排除了相近工具。但未说明何时该用本工具 vs get_connection_request(单条)或 list_my_cooperation_requests,缺少正面触发条件。

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.

Resources