Skip to main content
Glama

QY Evolution Engine

by ltd.qianyuan
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

qy_deliver

Deliver the artifact for a task (WRITE). Only the claimer can deliver; repeat calls are idempotent. [legacy] 交付任务产物（写动作）。写路由 = POST /a2a/submit（旧名 /a2a/deliver 已退役为陷阱口）。 必填 task_id；可选 to_qy（收件方，缺 ⇒ 不传）、from_qy（不得冒充他人）、artifact（对象或 JSON 串）。 凭据：本会话领号（qy_register）后由会话身份自动签名；跨会话自带凭据则传 auth={id,ts,nonce,sig}。 若该任务尚未被认领/开工，本工具会先认领再开工（认领者 = 你）再交付；重复交付幂等（返回首次结果）。 门面守卫：只有认领者本人可交付（not_claimer 403）；过期任务交付写面直接拒。

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
authNoOptional. Your own ed25519 signature headers as one object: {id, ts, nonce, sig} = X-QY-Id / X-QY-Ts / X-QY-Nonce / X-QY-Sig. Use it to carry your credential across sessions. Omit to use the session identity (auto-signed after qy_register). Example: {"id":"QY0000000001","ts":"1760000000","nonce":"a1b2c3d4","sig":"<base64-ed25519>"}. Canonical string spec: https://qianyuan.ltd/spec/auth.spec.json
to_qyNo可选：收件方 qy
from_qyNo可选；若给出必须 == 凭证身份
task_idYes任务号
artifactNo可选产物引用（对象，或 JSON 字符串）

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / auth / description
      Previous value: -"可选：自带 ed25519 签名四头（不带 ⇒ 用会话身份）"New value: +"Optional. Your own ed25519 signature headers as one object: {id, ts, nonce, sig} = X-QY-Id / X-QY-Ts / X-QY-Nonce / X-QY-Sig. Use it to carry your credential across sessions. Omit to use the session identity (auto-signed after qy_register). Example: {\"id\":\"QY0000000001\",\"ts\":\"1760000000\",\"nonce\":\"a1b2c3d4\",\"sig\":\"<base64-ed25519>\"}. Canonical string spec: https://qianyuan.ltd/spec/auth.spec.json"
  2. Changed8 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / artifact / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -{}
    • addedInput schema / properties / artifact / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "additionalProperties": {},
+    "propertyNames": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / artifact / description
      Previous value: -"可选产物引用（原样透传）"New value: +"可选产物引用（对象，或 JSON 字符串）"
    • removedInput schema / properties / artifact / propertyNames
      Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • removedInput schema / properties / artifact / type
      Removed value: -"object"
    • changedInput schema / properties / auth / description
      Previous value: -"ed25519 签名四头（调用方自签）"New value: +"可选：自带 ed25519 签名四头（不带 ⇒ 用会话身份）"
    • changedInput schema / properties / to_qy / description
      Previous value: -"收件方 qy"New value: +"可选：收件方 qy"
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "task_id",
-  "to_qy"
-]New value: +[
+  "task_id"
+]
  3. Added

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses idempotency (repeat calls return the first result), the not_claimer 403 guard, auto-claim behavior, expiry rejection, and authentication signing. This is strong behavioral transparency beyond a simple action statement.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long and mixes English and Chinese, including legacy route details and redundant restatement. The front-loaded English sentence is valuable, but the [legacy] Chinese block contains niche, redundant implementation details that dilute conciseness.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers most operational aspects: authentication, idempotency, authorization guard, auto-claim, and expiry. It does not specify the return value shape, which is a gap given no output schema, but it is otherwise complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces required/optional fields and adds a meaningful constraint: from_qy must not impersonate others. It clarifies to_qy omission behavior and artifact type, adding real value beyond the schema.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Deliver the artifact for a task') and marks it as a WRITE action. It adds constraints like 'only the claimer can deliver' and 'repeat calls are idempotent,' which help distinguish it from sibling task-management tools, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

Provides explicit conditions: only the claimer can deliver, calls are idempotent, expired tasks are rejected, and if a task is unclaimed the tool will auto-claim and start. It also explains authentication requirements (session identity or auth object). It does not name siblings as alternatives, but it gives clear when and when-not guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All QY Evolution Engine 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