Skip to main content
Glama
enesjakozh
Shawyeok

mcp-dingding-bot

by Shawyeok
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

MCP 钉钉机器人

DingDing Bot API 的 MCP 服务器，实现 DingDing / Dingtalk 消息通知和交互。

特征

  • 消息通知：发送各类钉钉消息（文本/markdown）

Related MCP server: dingtalk-mcp

工具

  1. send_text_message

    • 向 dingding 群发送纯文本消息

    • 输入：

      • text （字符串）：文本内容

      • atAll (可选布尔值): 是否@所有成员

  2. send_markdown_message

    • 向 dingding 群发送 markdown 格式的消息

    • 输入：

      • title （字符串）：消息标题

      • text （字符串）：Markdown 内容

      • atAll (可选布尔值): 是否@所有成员

设置

钉钉机器人代币

  1. 创建一个钉钉群聊机器人：

    • 进入群组设置 > 群组机器人管理

    • 创建自定义机器人

    • 保存 webhook URL 和 secret

与 Claude Desktop 一起使用

将以下内容添加到您的claude_desktop_config.json中：

Docker

{
  "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
      }
    }
  }
}

建造

Docker 构建：

docker build -t shawyeok/mcp-dingding-bot .

环境变量

  • DINGTALK_BOT_ACCESS_TOKEN ：您的叮叮群机器人访问令牌（必需）

  • DINGTALK_BOT_SECRET ：您的钉钉群机器人签名密钥（可选）

参考

执照

此 MCP 服务器采用 MIT 许可证。这意味着您可以自由使用、修改和分发该软件，但须遵守 MIT 许可证的条款和条件。更多详情，请参阅项目仓库中的 LICENSE 文件。

Available Tools

2 tools
send_markdown_messageC

Send a markdown message

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleYesThe title of the message
textYesThe text content to send
atMobilesNoThe mobile numbers of users to @mention (ping) individually in the group chat
atAllNoWhether 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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYesThe text content to send
atMobilesNoThe mobile numbers of users to @mention (ping) individually in the group chat
atAllNoWhether 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.

  1. 2 tool updatesv1.0.0
    • First observedsend_markdown_message
    • First observedsend_text_message
Deploy Server
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

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

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

Appeared in Searches