Skip to main content
Glama

qq_get_sticker_image

Retrieve a QQ sticker image for a visual model by sticker ID, md5, or URL, including GIF frame previews through a compatible bridge. Use it to inspect image content after a validated read.

Instructions

将表情图片返回给视觉模型。GIF 由兼容桥接抽帧预览;读取成功才能判断图片内容。

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "key": "<key>",
      "token": "<token>",
      "stickerId": "<stickerId>"
    },
    "name": "qq_get_sticker_image"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyYes当前授权会话 key,由桥接唤醒提示提供
tokenYes当前会话令牌,由桥接提供;不是 OneBot 管理令牌
stickerIdYes列表返回的表情 id、md5 或 url;不能任意读取文件

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does surface one genuinely non-obvious trait: GIFs are frame-extracted by the compatibility bridge rather than returned as animation. It omits other important behavior such as error/failure modes, size or format limits, and the fact that the result is consumed as visual content rather than text.

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?

Two short sentences with the primary action front-loaded and the GIF caveat second. No padding, though the terse phrasing is slightly compressed for a non-native reader of the language.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a three-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the definition covers the essentials plus the GIF preview nuance. It still leaves the failure path underspecified, which matters because the description itself warns that reads can fail.

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 coverage is 100%, and each parameter's description already explains authorization origin and that stickerId must come from a listing. The description adds nothing about the three parameters, so baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource: it returns the sticker image into the vision model's context, which is functionally distinct from qq_list_stickers and qq_send_sticker. It stops short of naming those siblings, so the agent must infer the split from the tool names alone.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus qq_list_stickers (metadata only) or qq_send_sticker (sending). The clause about needing a successful read before judging image content hints at a usage precondition, but it is an observation about results rather than routing guidance.

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