Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
WeChat Publisher MCP Server

WeChat Publisher MCP Server

by VikingMew
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

wechat_upload_article_image

Upload local JPG or PNG article images to WeChat and receive a URL ready for use in HTML img src tags. This solves inline image hosting for WeChat article publishing.

Instructions

上传本地 JPG/PNG 正文图片，返回可插入 HTML img src 的微信 URL

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": {
      "imagePath": "<imagePath>"
    },
    "name": "wechat_upload_article_image"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
imagePathYesWECHAT_COVER_DIR 内图片路径，最大 1 MB；正文图片仅支持 JPG/PNG

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the key output trait (returns a WeChat URL usable as an HTML img src) and format constraints, but says nothing about auth requirements, failure modes, or where the image lands.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler: purpose, accepted formats, and return value all in a single clause chain.

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?

For a one-parameter upload tool with no output schema, the description still tells the agent what comes back and what formats are valid, which is most of what is needed to call it correctly. Auth and error behavior remain unstated.

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% for the single imagePath parameter, including the directory and 1 MB limit, so the schema already does the documentation work. The description only echoes the JPG/PNG constraint rather than adding path or format detail beyond it.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('上传...正文图片' / upload body images) plus accepted formats, which is enough to separate it from wechat_upload_cover by the 正文 vs cover distinction. It does not name the sibling explicitly, so the differentiation must be inferred.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied: use this for inline article images, not covers. There is no explicit when-not guidance or pointer to wechat_upload_cover for the other image case.

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