Skip to main content
Glama
Shawyeok

mcp-dingding-bot

by Shawyeok
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation4/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one sends markdown-formatted messages, and the other sends plain text messages. While both involve sending messages, the format distinction is explicit and unlikely to cause confusion, though they could be seen as overlapping in the broader 'send message' function.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with 'send_' prefix and descriptive suffixes ('markdown_message', 'text_message'). The naming is predictable and adheres to a clear convention throughout the set.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for a bot that might handle more messaging operations (e.g., sending images, files, or managing conversations). This minimal set limits functionality and suggests an incomplete surface for a typical bot domain.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool set is severely incomplete for a Dingding bot domain. It only covers sending two message types, missing essential operations like receiving messages, managing users or groups, handling events, or supporting other media formats, which will likely cause agent failures in broader use cases.

  • Average 2.5/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior1/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Send a markdown message' only indicates a sending action without revealing any behavioral traits such as permissions required, rate limits, whether it's a read-only or destructive operation, or what happens upon success/failure. This leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.

    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 extremely concise with just three words, making it front-loaded and free of unnecessary information. Every word directly relates to the tool's function, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. For conciseness alone, it scores perfectly.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness1/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a sibling tool, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain what the tool does beyond its name, when to use it, behavioral aspects, or how it differs from 'send_text_message'. For a messaging tool with potential side effects and alternatives, this minimal description provides insufficient context for effective use.

    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?

    The input schema has 100% description coverage, with all four parameters clearly documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining parameter interactions or usage examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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

    Purpose2/5

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

    The description 'Send a markdown message' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'send_markdown_message'. It doesn't specify what resource is being acted upon (e.g., a chat channel, notification system, or messaging platform) or distinguish this tool from its sibling 'send_text_message'. The purpose is vague and lacks specificity.

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

    Usage Guidelines1/5

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

    There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'send_text_message'. The description provides no context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. Without any usage guidelines, agents cannot make informed decisions between similar tools.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only states the basic action. It fails to mention critical aspects like required permissions, rate limits, side effects (e.g., message delivery confirmation), or error handling, which are essential for a messaging tool.

    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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, clearly stating the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness2/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given the complexity of a messaging tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits, response format, error conditions, and sibling differentiation, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.

    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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying text content is sent, which the schema already covers. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

    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 clearly states the action ('Send') and resource ('a plain text message'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from its sibling 'send_markdown_message' beyond the format type, missing explicit comparison that would warrant 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 Guidelines2/5

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

    No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its sibling 'send_markdown_message' or any alternatives. The description lacks context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

mcp-dingding-bot MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp-dingding-bot MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

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/Shawyeok/mcp-dingding-bot'

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