send_share_card【需要登录】在会话里转发一张站内卡片（与 App 聊天里的「名片/需求卡转发」同源）：type=owner 转某位主理人的名片（把「我自己的名片」发给对方 = 用 get_my_profile 拿到自己的 id 再转），type=need 转某条需求卡。标题/头图/链接由服务端从库里重建可信快照，不接受自定义内容。
【注意】这会真的把卡片发给对方——发送前请向用户确认收件人和卡片对象。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cardId | Yes | 对象 id：owner 传用户 id，need 传需求 id | |
| cardType | Yes | 卡片类型：owner=主理人名片，need=需求卡 | |
| conversationId | Yes | 会话 id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations do not reveal that this is a real user-visible send, but the description explicitly warns '这会真的把卡片发给对方' and instructs the agent to confirm with the user. It also discloses that the server rebuilds a trusted snapshot and that custom content is rejected, which is material behavior beyond the schema and annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with labeled blocks for login/scope and a user-confirmation warning. Every sentence contributes either usage guidance or behavioral disclosure, with no redundant filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutating tool with three required parameters and no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, parameter selection, server-side behavior, and the need for user confirmation. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by mapping cardType to the correct cardId usage and by telling the agent how to obtain the user's own id when forwarding their own profile card, which is not obvious from the schema alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a concrete verb ('转发') and resource ('站内卡片') in a conversation, and enumerates the two card subtypes (owner/need). It also references App-native card forwarding, which clearly distinguishes it from generic messaging tools like send_message.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context: requires login, operates in a conversation, and explains how to send different card types, including how to send your own card via get_my_profile. The '不接受自定义内容' clause implicitly rules out send_message or free-form content, though it does not explicitly name the alternative tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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.
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.
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.