d1jiema-mcp

Save D1Jiema settings

d1jiema_settings_update

Saves the D1Jiema API token from the settings page, enabling agents to manage SMS workflows.

Instructions

Save the D1Jiema token from the settings page.

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": {
      "set": "<set>"
    },
    "name": "d1jiema_settings_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`set`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`values`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), but the description says nothing beyond that: it doesn't say whether 'set' replaces all settings or merges, whether existing values are overwritten, or whether the token is persisted locally or remotely.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single short sentence with no padding, front-loading the verb and resource. It is efficient, though bordering on under-specification rather than being trimmed to essentials.

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 need no explanation, but for a write tool with a nested free-form object and only basic annotations, the description leaves merge/replace semantics, accepted keys, and auth prerequisites unspecified.

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 coverage is 0% and the single 'set' parameter is a free-form object with string values, so the schema offers no key-level meaning. The description only mentions 'the token', which under-explains (and arguably mis-describes) an arbitrary key/value payload.

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

Purpose3/5

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

States a verb ('Save') and a resource ('D1Jiema token/settings'), which distinguishes it from the sibling d1jiema_settings_read. However, it narrows the tool to a single token while the schema's 'set' is an open key/value object, so the stated purpose is narrower than the actual contract.

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 d1jiema_settings_read, nor any prerequisite such as needing a valid session from d1jiema_login. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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

Deploy Server