A
licenseNot graded
qualityC
maintenancedingding webhook mcp server
24
GPL 3.0
mcp-dingding-bot
by Shawyeok
MCP ディンディンボット
DingDing Bot API 用の MCP サーバー。DingDing / Dingtalk メッセージの通知とやり取りを可能にします。
特徴
メッセージ通知: さまざまな種類のDingDingメッセージを送信します（テキスト/マークダウン）
Related MCP server: dingtalk-mcp
ツール
send_text_messageディンディングループにプレーンテキストメッセージを送信する
入力:
text(文字列): テキストコンテンツatAll(オプションのブール値): すべてのメンバーを@するかどうか
send_markdown_messageマークダウン形式のメッセージをdingdingグループに送信する
入力:
title(文字列): メッセージのタイトルtext（文字列）：MarkdownコンテンツatAll(オプションのブール値): すべてのメンバーを@するかどうか
設定
ディンディンボットトークン
DingDing グループ チャット ボットを作成します。
グループ設定 > グループボット管理へ移動
カスタムボットを作成する
Webhook URLとシークレットを保存する
Claude Desktopでの使用
claude_desktop_config.jsonに以下を追加します。
ドッカー
{
"mcpServers": {
"gitlab": {
"command": "docker",
"args": [
"run",
"--rm",
"-i",
"-e",
"DINGTALK_BOT_ACCESS_TOKEN",
"-e",
"DINGTALK_BOT_SECRET",
"shawyeok/mcp-dingding-bot"
],
"env": {
"DINGTALK_BOT_ACCESS_TOKEN": "<YOUR_ACCESS_TOKEN>",
"DINGTALK_BOT_SECRET": "<YOUR_SECRET>" // Optional, for robots with signature verification enabled
}
}
}
}NPX
{
"mcpServers": {
"gitlab": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"-y",
"mcp-dingding-bot"
],
"env": {
"DINGTALK_BOT_ACCESS_TOKEN": "<YOUR_ACCESS_TOKEN>",
"DINGTALK_BOT_SECRET": "<YOUR_SECRET>" // Optional, for robots with signature verification enabled
}
}
}
}建てる
Dockerビルド:
docker build -t shawyeok/mcp-dingding-bot .環境変数
DINGTALK_BOT_ACCESS_TOKEN: Dingdingグループロボットのアクセストークン（必須）DINGTALK_BOT_SECRET: Dingdingグループロボットの署名シークレット（オプション）
参考文献
ライセンス
このMCPサーバーはMITライセンスに基づいてライセンスされています。つまり、MITライセンスの条件に従って、ソフトウェアを自由に使用、改変、配布することができます。詳細については、プロジェクトリポジトリのLICENSEファイルをご覧ください。
Available Tools
2 toolssend_markdown_messageC
Send a markdown message
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | The title of the message | |
| text | Yes | The text content to send | |
| atMobiles | No | The mobile numbers of users to @mention (ping) individually in the group chat | |
| atAll | No | Whether to @all the users in the group |
TDQS
C2/5.0
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.
send_text_messageC
Send a plain text message
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | The text content to send | |
| atMobiles | No | The mobile numbers of users to @mention (ping) individually in the group chat | |
| atAll | No | Whether to @all the users in the group |
TDQS
C2.9/5.0
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.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
2 tool updates
v1.0.0- First observed
send_markdown_message - First observed
send_text_message
TDQS
C2.6/5.0
Scored across 2 tools
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.
Maintenance
ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues
Related MCP Connectors
MCP server for GLM chat completions using Zhipu AI models via AceDataCloud
MCP server for Text-to-Speech
MCP server for AI dialogue using various LLM models via AceDataCloud
MCP server for OpenAI API (chat completions, image generation, embeddings) via AceDataCloud
Related MCP Servers
- -
- AlicenseBqualityCmaintenanceMCP Server for notify to telegram / weixin21104 PyPI28MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceA MCP server that exposes QQ bot capabilities over Streamable HTTP, enabling clients to query bot status, read group and friend info, fetch chat history, and send group/private text messages.3MIT
