Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
goofish-cli

goofish-cli

by fancyboi999
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

media_upload

Upload an image to Xianyu (Goofish) and receive a reusable receipt for listings, messages, or other marketplace tasks.

Instructions

上传图片，独立媒体预算，返回可复用图片收据

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "media_upload"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one useful behavioral fact — the returned receipt is reusable — but says nothing about auth requirements, accepted formats, size limits, or whether uploads consume a shared quota (the '独立媒体预算' phrase hints at quota behavior without explaining it).

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?

Very short, with the core action front-loaded. However, '独立媒体预算' is an unexplained clause that occupies space without conveying actionable meaning, so not every element earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described. But for a mutation/upload tool with no annotations, no documented path semantics, and no usage conditions, the description leaves too much for the agent to guess.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single required parameter 'path', so the description must compensate and does not. An agent cannot tell whether 'path' is a local filesystem path, a URL, or a media identifier — a critical ambiguity for an upload tool.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (上传图片 = upload image) and adds the outcome (returns a reusable image receipt). It does not differentiate from siblings, though none of the listed siblings are competing upload tools, so the risk of misselection is low. The phrase '独立媒体预算' (independent media budget) is cryptic and adds fog rather than clarity.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, no indication of what kind of image or workflow this fits. The agent is left to infer everything about the trigger condition.

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