Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
feishu-user-plugin

feishu-user-plugin

by EthanQC
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

get_wiki_node

Resolve a wiki node token to its underlying object such as docx, bitable, sheet, or file. Returns the object type, token, and space ID for direct access.

Instructions

[Official API] Resolve a Wiki node token to its underlying object (docx / bitable / sheet / mindnote / file). Returns obj_type + obj_token + space_id so you can read/write the real resource via the usual docx / bitable tools. Accepts bare wiki node token (wikcnXXX), an underlying obj_token (docxXXX / bascnXXX from search_wiki), or a full Feishu /wiki/ URL — the handler tries the wiki endpoint first and falls back to a synthesized node-shape for non-wiki tokens.

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": {
      "node_token": "<node_token>"
    },
    "name": "get_wiki_node"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
node_tokenYesWiki node token (wikcnXXX / wikmXXX / wiknXXX), underlying obj_token (docxXXX / bascnXXX), or full Feishu /wiki/<token> URL

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.3.10

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the fallback mechanism ('tries the wiki endpoint first and falls back to a synthesized node-shape') and the exact return fields. The word 'Resolve' and 'Returns' imply a read-only operation, and the tool is described as enabling read/write via other tools, not mutating directly. This is substantive disclosure, though it stops short of stating auth requirements or explicit non-mutation.

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?

The description is three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, output/usage rationale, and input variants/fallback. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids redundancy or fluff.

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 single-parameter resolver with no output schema, the description covers accepted inputs, return fields, and the fallback behavior. It doesn't detail the exact JSON structure or error handling, but the tool's simplicity and the given information make it reasonably complete. It fits well among sibling wiki tools.

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 adds context beyond the schema by explaining that obj_token can come from search_wiki, mentioning the 'synthesized node-shape' fallback, and clarifying the resolution flow. This provides practical meaning to the parameter beyond its type definition.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states a specific verb ('Resolve') and resource ('Wiki node token') and explains what it returns ('obj_type + obj_token + space_id'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_wiki_nodes or search_wiki, which list/search rather than resolve a single token.

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 description indicates when to use this tool: to resolve a wiki token into an underlying object so you can 'read/write the real resource via the usual docx / bitable tools.' It also notes accepted input types (bare wiki token, obj_token, full URL) and the fallback behavior, providing clear operational context. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives but the intended use case is evident.

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