传承·交大 MCP

by Flagwill

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Hybrid

share_rate_material

Rate shared materials as like or hate, and cancel an existing rating by setting liked to false.

Instructions

点赞/点踩资料；rating=like/hate，liked=false 表示取消。

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": {
      "material_id": "<material_id>",
      "rating": "<rating>"
    },
    "name": "share_rate_material"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`liked`	No
`rating`	Yes
`material_id`	Yes	平台对象 ID，正整数

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this as a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world mutation. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it discloses the tri-state semantics where liked=false retracts a prior rating, which an agent could not infer from the schema alone. It does not mention idempotency or auth requirements, so it stops short of 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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the action and then the parameter semantics. Nothing extraneous and nothing buried.

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 simple 3-parameter mutation with an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the key behavioral detail (cancellation) and the enum meaning. Only the relationship to sibling tools and any auth prerequisites are left implicit.

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%, with material_id the sole documented parameter, so the description carries real weight. It explains both the rating enum values (like/hate) and the otherwise-undocumented liked flag as a cancellation switch, compensating well for the coverage gap, though it omits the default-true behavior of liked.

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 plus resource ('点赞/点踩资料' – like/dislike a material), which clearly separates it from siblings like share_rate_comment or share_report_material. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the action and target are unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied: call this to like or dislike a material, and set liked=false to withdraw the rating. However, the description never says when to prefer this over related siblings (share_report_material for abuse, share_purchase_material, etc.) or what prerequisites exist.

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

Deploy Server