cuqu-mcp

query_activities

查询粗趣小程序上的活动列表。

当用户想找活动、看有什么活动、按条件筛选活动时调用此工具。

Args:
    activity_type: 活动类型筛选，如"桌游聚会"、"户外徒步"、"剧本杀"、"飞盘"等。留空则不筛选。
    date: 日期筛选，格式"2026-08-22"。留空则不筛选。
    location: 区域筛选，如"南山区"、"罗湖区"。留空则不筛选。
    keyword: 关键词搜索活动标题和描述。留空则不搜索。

Returns:
    JSON 字符串，包含活动列表（标题、时间、地点、价格、剩余名额、H5 链接等）

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`date`	No
`limit`	No	返回条数上限，1-100，默认 50。想看更多就传大一点
`keyword`	No
`district`	No	区/县名，如：南山、福田、龙岗、惠东县。与 city 同传时按城市+区两级过滤；支持常见别名（area/zone）。不传则不过滤区
`location`	No
`activity_type`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 6, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / district

Added value: +{
+  "description": "区/县名，如：南山、福田、龙岗、惠东县。与 city 同传时按 城市+区 两级过滤；支持常见别名（area/zone）。不传则不过滤区",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / limit

Added value: +{
+  "description": "返回条数上限，1-100，默认 50。想看更多就传大一点",
+  "type": "integer"
+}

First observedSep 24, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return shape (JSON string with list, price, 剩余名额, H5 link) and the 'leave blank = no filter' behavior, but says nothing about auth requirements, pagination/limits, or result ordering. Adequate but incomplete for an unannotated tool.

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?

Well front-loaded: purpose, then usage, then Args, then Returns. The repeated '留空则…' clause across all four params is slightly redundant but not wasteful, and the whole thing is appropriately short.

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 read-only list query with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, triggers, per-filter semantics, and return contents. The only unaddressed parameters (limit, district) are already documented in the schema, so nothing essential is 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?

Schema coverage is only 33% (limit and district carry their own descriptions), yet the description documents 4 of 6 params with concrete filter semantics and examples, plus a consistent '留空则不筛选' rule. Minor ambiguity: location is illustrated with district names ('南山区'), which overlaps conceptually with the separate district parameter.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb+resource ('查询...活动列表') and scopes it to the 粗趣 mini-program, which separates it from siblings like query_venues and get_activity_card. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use instead, so it is clear but not fully differentiating.

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?

The second sentence gives explicit trigger conditions ('当用户想找活动、看有什么活动、按条件筛选活动时'), so an agent knows when to reach for it. It does not state exclusions or name alternative tools (e.g. get_activity_card for a single activity), so no 5.

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

All cuqu-mcp tools Inspect

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

Need Help?