Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
wechat-mcp

wechat-mcp

by Xwangtie
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

wechat_send_text

Send text messages to WeChat contacts or group chats using a contact ID, nickname, or group name. Specify the recipient and message content to deliver text directly through WeChat.

Instructions

向联系人或群聊发送文本消息。contact 参数可以是联系人的 ID、昵称或群名称。

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": {
      "contact": "<contact>",
      "message": "<message>"
    },
    "name": "wechat_send_text"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contactYes接收方 ID / 昵称 / 群名称
messageYes要发送的文本内容

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden for disclosing behavioral traits. It only mentions the flexibility of the contact parameter (ID/nickname/group name) but does not note any side effects, prerequisites, rate limits, or irreversibility of sending a message. This is a significant gap for a mutating 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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes the key parameter clarification. There is no redundant fluff or unnecessary detail.

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 simple two-parameter send tool, the description provides sufficient information for an agent to invoke it correctly, including how to specify the recipient. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it would benefit from a note on return values or error behavior.

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%, with both parameters having descriptions. The description's note about contact being an ID/nickname/group name largely duplicates the schema's '接收方 ID / 昵称 / 群名称'. Thus, the description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema.

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 '向联系人或群聊发送文本消息' (sends a text message to a contact or group chat), which specifies the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like wechat_send_file by explicitly limiting to text messages.

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 implies usage for sending text messages to a contact or group, and it does not exclude any scenarios. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., wechat_send_file for files) or state when not to use the tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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