Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
fanqie-writer-mcp

fanqie-writer-mcp

by CommitByRyan
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

preview_html

Convert plain text into Fanqie Novel body HTML paragraphs to preview formatting and verify layout without modifying remote data.

Instructions

把纯文本转成番茄正文 HTML（ 段落）看效果，不动任何远端数据。用于格式自查。

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "preview_html"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fileNo或本地稿件路径
contentNo正文纯文本

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does usefully disclose that nothing remote is touched ('不动任何远端数据') — a real safety signal against the mutating siblings. It does not say what the call returns (an HTML string? a rendered preview?) and there is no output schema to cover that, leaving a meaningful gap.

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?

Two short clauses, front-loaded with the transformation, zero filler. It is arguably compressed to the point of omitting needed detail, but nothing in the text is wasted.

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 two-param, non-mutating local preview tool with full schema coverage, the description supplies the missing behavioral piece (no remote side effects) and the intent. The remaining gap — no statement of the return value despite no output schema — is the only thing an agent would still wonder about.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters and the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about the file-vs-content relationship, which matters here since both are optional and the schema descriptions ('或本地稿件路径') do not establish precedence.

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 transformation (plain text → 番茄正文 HTML with <p> paragraphs) plus the purpose (看效果, 格式自查). That is enough to separate it from the sibling upload/update tools, which all operate on remote chapter data. It never names a sibling explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'用于格式自查' implies the usage context but never states the triggering condition (e.g. run before upload_chapter / batch_upload to verify formatting) or any exclusion. The agent has to infer when to reach for this instead of uploading directly.

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