Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
FishClaw MCP

FishClaw MCP

by TnoobT
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

draft_item

Read-only

Fill a product draft on Xianyu with image, description, and price, then auto-screenshot for review before publishing.

Instructions

在闲鱼发布页面填写商品草稿（图片、描述、分类、价格），填写完成后自动截图。 返回文本中包含截图路径，确认无误后调用 publish_item 正式发布。

Args: image: 商品图片，支持本地绝对路径或网络 URL（http/https）。 description: 商品描述文字。 price: 商品售价（元），默认 100.0。

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": {
      "image": "<image>",
      "description": "<description>"
    },
    "name": "draft_item"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
imageYes
descriptionYes
priceNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

The description describes write operations (creating a draft and taking a screenshot) while the annotation readOnlyHint is true, creating a direct contradiction. This significantly undermines transparency.

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?

The description is relatively concise and front-loaded, but the mixed language (Chinese and English) and lack of strict formatting slightly reduce clarity. Nonetheless, it conveys essential information without unnecessary fluff.

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?

Given an output schema exists, the description covers the return value (screenshot path) well. It explains the auto-screenshot behavior, which is key. Minor gaps include lack of error handling details, but overall sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides valuable semantics for all three parameters: image (local path or URL), description (text), and price (default 100). This goes beyond the schema's bare fields.

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 clearly states it fills a draft on Xianyu with fields including image, description, and price, and then takes a screenshot. It also references the sibling publish_item for formal release, distinguishing its role.

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 explicitly instructs to confirm the draft and then call publish_item for formal release, providing clear usage context. However, it does not mention scenarios where drafting is inappropriate or alternatives like manage_item.

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