Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
tw-mcp

tw-mcp

by Larryveryhandsome
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

關於 tw-mcp

about
Read-onlyIdempotent

Explains tw-mcp's available tools, data sources, licensing, author, and customization contacts so users can understand the server and request tailored support.

Instructions

介紹 tw-mcp：有哪些工具、資料來源與授權，以及作者與客製化聯絡方式。使用者問「這是什麼」「誰做的」「可以客製化嗎」時呼叫。

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": "about"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context: it is a static informational payload about tooling, data provenance, licensing, and author contact, and it is consistent with openWorldHint=false because it exposes no external references. It does not describe the response shape, but no output schema exists to do that for it.

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?

Two short sentences: the first front-loads the content scope, and the second front-loads the invocation trigger. Neither sentence is wasted, and it needs no trimming.

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 zero-argument informational tool with rich annotations and no output schema, this is nearly complete: the content domains are enumerated and the trigger conditions are explicit. The only minor gap is that the return format or depth (for example, is it a summary or a full manifest) is not hinted at.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters; the schema coverage is 100%, and the empty input schema is unambiguous. The baseline for a parameterless tool applies, and there is nothing further for the description to compensate for.

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 names a specific verb and resource: it introduces tw-mcp and enumerates exactly what it covers (tool list, data sources, licensing, author, customization contact). This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling computational tools such as tw_workdays or pii_mask.

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 gives explicit trigger phrases like「這是什麼」「誰做的」「可以客製化嗎」, so an agent knows precisely when to fire it. It does not state when not to use it, nor does it name alternatives, which keeps it below a 5.

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