Skip to main content
Glama

quest

Post, browse, claim, and submit refinement quests for AI artifacts. Use actions to manage the quest lifecycle from creation to solution submission.

Instructions

📜 悬赏令 — 发布、浏览、认领、提交悬赏任务 Quest Board — Post, browse, claim, and submit refinement quests.

通过 action 参数指定操作:

  • browse: 浏览待认领的悬赏令(默认)

  • post: 发布悬赏令 — 悬赏帮忙改进法宝

  • claim: 认领悬赏令 — 接下任务

  • submit: 提交成果 — 提交优化后的代码

Args: action: 操作类型 / Action type: browse, post, claim, submit artifact_name: 法宝名称(action=post 时必填) description: 改进需求描述(action=post 时必填) code_url: 当前代码链接(action=post 时可选) quest_issue_number: 悬赏令 Issue 编号(action=claim/submit 时必填) solution: 解决方案描述(action=submit 时必填) username: 用户名(默认当前用户) limit: 浏览数量(action=browse 时使用,默认 10)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
actionNobrowse
code_urlNo
solutionNo
usernameNo
descriptionNo
artifact_nameNo
quest_issue_numberNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes what each action does but does not mention side effects, permissions, or consequences of posting/claiming/submitting quests.

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?

The description is well-structured with action headers and parameter lists. It is slightly lengthy due to bilingual text, but the organization aids readability.

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 multi-action tool with 8 parameters and no required ones, the description covers all actions and parameter roles adequately. It could mention return values or output schema details, but is otherwise complete.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description adds significant value by explaining each parameter's purpose per action (e.g., 'artifact_name' required for post, 'quest_issue_number' for claim/submit). This compensates for the sparse schema.

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 the tool as a 'Quest Board' with specific actions: browse, post, claim, submit. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on refinement quests.

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 explains when to use each action via the 'action' parameter and lists required/optional parameters per action. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or provide alternatives.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/JinNing6/TianGong'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server