Skip to main content
Glama

plurk_reply

Post replies to Plurk threads using the plurk-mcp server. Reply to owned threads or explicit mentions with provided credentials and content.

Instructions

Reply to an eligible Plurk thread for the supplied credentials when it is an owned thread or an explicit mention.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
credentialsYes
plurkIdYes
contentYes
qualifierNo

Implementation Reference

  • The 'createReply' method in PlurkApplication handles the logic for replying to a Plurk thread, including validation, eligibility checks, policy enforcement, the actual API call, and audit logging.
    public async createReply(
      adapterSource: AdapterSource,
      credentials: PlurkCredentialsInput,
      input: { readonly plurkId: number; readonly content: string; readonly qualifier?: string },
    ): Promise<WriteResult> {
      if (!Number.isInteger(input.plurkId) || input.plurkId <= 0) {
        throw new ServiceError("validation", "plurkId must be a positive integer", {
          metadata: { plurkId: input.plurkId },
        });
      }
    
      const trimmedContent = input.content.trim();
      if (trimmedContent.length === 0) {
        throw new ServiceError("validation", "content must not be empty");
      }
    
      const actionId = randomUUID();
      const targetIds = { plurkId: input.plurkId, threadId: input.plurkId };
      let account: AuthenticatedAccount | undefined;
      try {
        const context = await this.resolveAccountContext(credentials);
        account = context.account;
    
        const thread = await context.client.getThreadContext(
          input.plurkId,
          context.profile.nickName ?? "",
        );
        this.assertReplyEligible(thread, context.account);
        await this.policyService.assertCanReply(context.account, thread.plurk.plurkId);
    
        const result = await context.client.createReply({
          plurkId: input.plurkId,
          content: trimmedContent,
          qualifier: input.qualifier,
        });
    
        await this.policyService.recordSuccessfulReply(context.account, thread.plurk.plurkId);
        await this.auditLogStore.append(
          buildAuditEvent({
            timestamp: new Date().toISOString(),
            adapterSource,
            eventType: "write.success",
            actionId,
            actionType: "respond-to-plurk",
            account,
            requestSummary: { qualifier: input.qualifier ?? ":", contentLength: trimmedContent.length },
            targetIds: {
              plurkId: result.plurkId || input.plurkId,
              responseId: result.responseId,
              threadId: input.plurkId,
            },
            result: summarizeWriteResult(result),
          }),
        );
    
        return result;
      } catch (error) {
        await this.handleWriteFailure(error, {
          adapterSource,
          actionId,
          actionType: "respond-to-plurk",
          account,
          requestSummary: { qualifier: input.qualifier ?? ":", contentLength: trimmedContent.length },
          targetIds,
        });
        throw error;
      }
    }
  • The 'plurk_reply' tool is defined and registered in the tool catalog, mapping to the 'application.createReply' method.
      name: "plurk_reply",
      description:
        "Reply to an eligible Plurk thread for the supplied credentials when it is an owned thread or an explicit mention.",
      inputSchema: z.object({
        credentials: credentialsSchema,
        plurkId: z.number().int().positive(),
        content: z.string().min(1),
        qualifier: z.string().min(1).max(12).optional(),
      }),
      execute: async ({ credentials, plurkId, content, qualifier }) =>
        application.createReply("mcp", credentials, { plurkId, content, qualifier }),
    },
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It successfully conveys the write-operation nature ('reply') and critical eligibility constraints, but fails to address error behavior (what happens if the thread is ineligible), rate limits, or side effects. The mention of credentials implies authentication requirements.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single sentence achieving brevity, but suffers from slightly awkward phrasing ('for the supplied credentials' rather than 'using'). The eligibility clause is grammatically attached to the credentials rather than the reply action, creating minor parsing friction. Every word is functional but the structure could be clearer.

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?

Given the tool's complexity—including a nested OAuth credentials object, 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and platform-specific eligibility rules—the single-sentence description is insufficient. It lacks explanation of return values, error conditions, the purpose of the 'qualifier' field, and Plurk-specific behavioral context needed for safe invocation.

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

Parameters2/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate significantly but falls short. While it implicitly references 'credentials' and the reply action suggests 'content' and 'plurkId' usage, it provides no explanation for the 'qualifier' parameter (which is optional but undocumented) and no format guidance for any parameter. The complex nested credentials object particularly requires description support that is absent.

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 identifies the specific action (reply) and resource (Plurk thread), and includes eligibility criteria (owned thread or explicit mention) that implicitly distinguish it from the sibling 'plurk_post' tool. However, it could more explicitly contrast with 'plurk_post' to make the distinction clearer.

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 description provides eligibility constraints specifying when the tool can be used (owned threads or explicit mentions), which serves as contextual guidance. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives like 'plurk_post', and omits prerequisites beyond credential requirements.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/congcongfu/plurk-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server