feishu-cli-mcp

Inspect lark-cli API schema

lark_cli_schema

Read-onlyIdempotent

Inspect API schema details—parameters, request bodies, response shapes, identities, scopes—before executing commands or risky writes to prevent errors.

Instructions

Inspect parameters, request body, response shape, supported identities, and scopes. Call this before API commands or risky writes.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "lark_cli_schema"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`method`	No	Optional API method name, e.g. "calendar.events.instance_view". Omit to list schemas.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes
`args`	Yes
`json`	No
`risk`	Yes
`stderr`	Yes
`stdout`	Yes
`command`	Yes
`exitCode`	Yes
`timedOut`	Yes
`nextSteps`	Yes
`truncated`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by enumerating the schema aspects inspected, which goes beyond the annotation data. No contradictions are present.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause adds value. There is no filler or redundant information.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With a full output schema available and clear annotations, the description covers the tool's role completely. It mentions the inspection scope and the importance of calling it before commands, which suffices for this simple one-parameter tool.

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 description coverage is 100% because the sole 'method' parameter is documented with an example and the omit-to-list behavior. The description adds no further parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses the specific verb 'Inspect' and names the resource (lark-cli API schema) plus the aspects it covers (parameters, request body, response shape, supported identities, scopes). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like lark_cli_run and lark_cli_auth_status.

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?

It explicitly instructs to 'Call this before API commands or risky writes,' providing clear timing and context. It doesn't mention exclusions or alternative tools by name, but the sibling names and the 'before' guidance make the use case clear.

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

Deploy Server