Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
WeChat Publisher MCP Server

WeChat Publisher MCP Server

by VikingMew
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

wechat_upload_cover

Uploads a local cover image (PNG/JPEG/GIF/WebP) as permanent WeChat image material and returns the mediaId needed for a draft's thumbMediaId.

Instructions

上传本地封面为永久图片素材，支持 PNG/JPEG/GIF/WebP，返回可用于草稿 thumbMediaId 的 mediaId

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_cover"
  }
}

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

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful traits: the asset is permanent (永久), which formats are accepted, and that the return value is a mediaId keyed to thumbMediaId. It omits permission/auth requirements, whether re-uploads dedupe, and error behavior for oversize files.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler: purpose, format support, and return value in that order. Every clause earns its place.

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 one required param, full schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers what the tool does, what it accepts, and what it returns well enough to invoke. It could add auth/permission expectations and whether the mediaId is reusable across drafts.

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

Parameters4/5

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

With only one parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents imagePath, the 1 MB limit, and the directory constraint. The description adds the accepted cover formats (PNG/JPEG/GIF/WebP), which is not in the schema property text and clarifies a point the schema leaves ambiguous.

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+resource (上传本地封面为永久图片素材) and the supported formats, plus the returned artifact. It implicitly distinguishes from the sibling wechat_upload_article_image by scoping to 'cover', but never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

The phrase '返回可用于草稿 thumbMediaId 的 mediaId' implies the follow-up use with wechat_create_draft, which is implied usage guidance. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool rather than wechat_upload_article_image, and no 'when not to use' condition.

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