wecom-crm-mcp

wecom_msg_template

Create and send message templates, welcome messages, and track mass-sending results for WeCom customer contacts.

Instructions

消息推送 / 群发 — actions: add_msg_template / send_welcome_msg / get_groupmsg_list_v2 / get_groupmsg_task / get_groupmsg_send_result.

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": {
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "wecom_msg_template"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`action`	Yes
`params`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 5, 2026

TDQS

D1.3/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or what operations are read-only vs. destructive. The description only lists action names without any behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very brief, but it is not appropriately structured. It presents a fragmented list of actions without explanation, making it under-specified rather than concise. A single sentence that is unclear does not earn high marks.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (multiple actions via a dispatcher pattern) and the presence of an output schema (though not shown), the description fails to explain what each action returns or any other relevant context. It is completely inadequate for an agent to understand the tool's overall functionality.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The input schema has two parameters (action and params) with no descriptions. Schema description coverage is 0%. The tool's description adds no meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain valid action values or the structure of params. This fails to help the agent construct correct invocations.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description begins with '消息推送 / 群发' (message push/broadcast), hinting at a general purpose, but immediately lists actions (add_msg_template, send_welcome_msg, etc.) without clarifying that the tool is a dispatcher for multiple operations. It lacks a clear verb+resource statement distinguishing it from siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., wecom_customer, wecom_group_chat). There is no indication of prerequisites, alternatives, or context-specific applicability.

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

Deploy Server