Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
fanfou-mcp

fanfou-mcp

by Anthonyeef
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

post_status

Publishes a new Fanfou status, optionally as a reply or repost, only after explicit user confirmation.

Instructions

Post a new status (发饭). Optional in_reply_to_status_id / repost_status_id. WRITE ACTION: only call after the user has explicitly confirmed this exact action and content in chat. Requires confirm=true.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "status": "<status>"
    },
    "name": "post_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusYes
confirmNo
repost_status_idNo
in_reply_to_status_idNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key behavioral traits: this is a WRITE ACTION, it requires explicit user confirmation, and it needs confirm=true. It omits irreversibility, rate limits, and what the call returns, so not a 5.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Front-loaded with the action, then the optional threading params, then the safety constraint. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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?

A write tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage needs more than this. The safety/confirmation guidance is solid, but the threading and repost parameters remain opaque and no return behavior is indicated.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It names in_reply_to_status_id and repost_status_id and flags confirm, but supplies no meaning, format, or valid-value guidance, and never explains the required 'status' parameter beyond the verb.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Post a new status'), which clearly distinguishes it from read siblings like get_status and destructive siblings like delete_status. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-call condition: only after the user has explicitly confirmed the exact action and content in chat, plus the confirm=true requirement. It does not name when-not to use it or route to alternative write tools (favorite, friendship), so it falls short of the top band.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools