wxauto MCP Server

by cluic

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

send_message

Send text messages through WeChat automation with options for recipients, @mentions, and matching preferences.

Instructions

发送文本消息。参数: msg (消息内容), who (接收人，可选), at (@对象，可选), exact (精确匹配，默认false)

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": {
      "msg": "<msg>"
    },
    "name": "send_message"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`msg`	Yes
`who`	No
`at`	No
`exact`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.2Mar 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool sends messages but provides no information about permissions needed, rate limits, whether messages are saved to history, or what happens on failure. '发送文本消息' implies a write operation, but no safety or behavioral context is given.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence stating the purpose followed by a clean parameter list. Every element serves a clear purpose with zero wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a message-sending tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after sending (success/failure indicators, message IDs), doesn't mention any limitations or requirements, and provides no context about the messaging platform or integration specifics.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description provides essential parameter information: msg (message content), who (recipient, optional), at (@ target, optional), and exact (exact match, default false). This covers all 4 parameters and adds meaningful context about optionality and defaults that the schema alone doesn't provide.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('发送文本消息' - send text message) and resource (text message), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't specifically differentiate from sibling tools like send_bulk_messages or send_image, but the core function is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like send_bulk_messages, send_image, or send_files. It simply lists parameters without context about appropriate use cases or prerequisites.

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