Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

独行录 / opcmenu

by io.github.yzlee
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

提交报名

submit_signup
Idempotent

登录/本人明确要求;先get_signup_activity补missingRequired；提交后list_my_signups核验，截止按exits。仅传新增/修改答案，合并上版/复用层/主页推导；省略不清空，重提覆盖。明示删除才clearKeys，清复用层但留文件。file省略保留附件；普通附件须prepare_signup_file_upload传真实字节，名称/链接无效。缺必填不能交；敏感旧值省略会拒绝丢值，须重答或明确clearKeys。channel=agent主办方可见。delivery.kind=webview仅留档，须本人按delivery.url交外表，勿称报名成功。协议须get_activity_agreement全文展示并同意后传versionId/accept，留签署审计。requiresAppActivation仅预留，非提交；本人以报名手机号登录App确认。

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slugYes活动 slug
answersNo这次要新填/要改的答案。没传的题不会被清空（自动沿用现值）
agreementNo报名协议确认，可选。versionId 取自 get_activity_agreement；只有把协议全文念给用户、他明确说同意之后才许带（这是会留签署记录与审计日志的法律行为）
clearKeysNo要显式清空的题目 key（用户明说「把微信号删掉」才用；不传就一个都不清）

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / agreement / description
      Previous value: -"报名协议确认，可选。versionId 取自 get_activity_agreement；**只有把协议全文念给用户、他明确说同意之后才许带**（这是会留签署记录与审计日志的法律行为）"New value: +"报名协议确认，可选。versionId 取自 get_activity_agreement；只有把协议全文念给用户、他明确说同意之后才许带（这是会留签署记录与审计日志的法律行为）"
    • changedInput schema / properties / answers / description
      Previous value: -"这次要新填/要改的答案。没传的题**不会被清空**（自动沿用现值）"New value: +"这次要新填/要改的答案。没传的题不会被清空（自动沿用现值）"
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / agreement
      Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "description": "报名协议确认，可选。versionId 取自 get_activity_agreement；**只有把协议全文念给用户、他明确说同意之后才许带**（这是会留签署记录与审计日志的法律行为）",
+  "properties": {
+    "accept": {
+      "const": true,
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "versionId": {
+      "maxLength": 100,
+      "minLength": 1,
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "versionId",
+    "accept"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the idempotentHint/destructiveHint annotations: merge semantics (omitted answers persist, resubmission overwrites), that clearKeys wipes the reuse layer but retains files, that omitting sensitive old values is rejected rather than silently dropped, that missing required fields block submission, and that the agreement leaves a signing audit trail.

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?

Very dense semicolon-separated clauses with abbreviations that are hard to parse ("截止按exits" is cryptic and looks like a typo). Almost every clause carries real guidance, but the lack of structure or front-loading a one-line purpose makes it a wall of text rather than a well-structured definition.

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 a mutation-style tool with nested objects, no output schema, and a rich sibling set, the description covers the full workflow end to end: pre-fetch, fill, submit, verify, file upload path, agreement handling, and external-form caveats. Nothing an agent needs to avoid a bad submission appears to be missing.

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?

With 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: clearKeys semantics (only on explicit user deletion, clears reuse layer, keeps files), answers merge/overwrite behavior, and the agreement requirement that the full text be shown before versionId/accept is sent. It stops short of explaining slug or the shape of channel/delivery fields.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description jumps straight into prerequisites ("登录/本人明确要求") rather than stating a clean verb+resource like "submit a registration for an activity". The submission action is inferable from "提交后list_my_signups核验" and the title, but the opening sentence does not establish purpose directly, leaving it weaker than a clear 4.

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?

Explicitly names prerequisites and siblings: call get_signup_activity first to fill missingRequired, verify with list_my_signups after, use prepare_signup_file_upload for real file bytes, and get_activity_agreement for the agreement text. It also gives explicit when-not guidance (requiresAppActivation is not a submission; channel=agent is organizer-visible; delivery.kind=webview is record-only and must not be reported as a successful signup).

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