Skip to main content
Glama
hanjiajiade

trade-agent-mcp

by hanjiajiade

draft_outreach

Generate a first outreach email with subject A/B tests and three follow-ups, tailored to a target company, country, and product.

Instructions

生成开发信首封(100-150 词量级)+ 主题 A/B + 3 封递进跟进。模板化、确定性、可运行。

Args: target_company: 目标公司名。 country: 目标国别。 product: 产品/品类。 persona: 客户画像要点(决策人关注点)。 certs: 相关认证(如 CE/ANVISA/INMETRO)。 contact: 称呼。 me: 发件人署名。 language: en / zh(其他语言回退 en)。 tone: professional / casual。

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
meNo(您的署名)
toneNoprofessional
certsNo(待补)
contactNoProcurement Team
countryYes
personaNo
productYes
languageNoen
target_companyYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

没有提供注释,因此描述承担了行为披露的责任。描述提到'模板化、确定性、可运行',表明输出是可预测且稳定的,这提供了有用的行为线索。但未说明是否会产生外部副作用(如发送邮件)、是否需要权限或返回格式。对于生成草稿的工具,这些信息虽非关键,但仍有缺失。

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?

描述结构清晰,开头一句概括主要功能,随后以Args列表形式逐条说明参数,没有冗余内容。虽然列表较长,但每个参数都有必要,信息密度高,整体效率良好。

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

Completeness4/5

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

对于9个参数的复杂工具,描述提供了所有参数的解释,并明确了输出内容(首封、主题、跟进)。虽然没有输出schema,但描述已足够让调用者理解返回结构。缺少的是返回值格式和可能的错误处理,但不算严重缺陷。

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

Parameters5/5

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

尽管schema描述覆盖率为0%,但描述文本中为每个参数提供了清晰的一行解释(如'目标公司名'、'目标国别'等),涵盖了全部9个参数。这充分补偿了schema的不足,使调用者能准确理解每个参数的含义和预期值。

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?

描述明确说明了工具的具体功能:生成开发信首封(指定字数)、主题A/B以及3封跟进邮件。动词'生成'和资源'开发信'非常具体,且与兄弟姐妹工具(如research_company、scan_market)有明显区别,因为那些工具聚焦于研究或市场分析,而非内容生成。

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?

描述没有明确说明何时使用此工具或何时不使用,也没有提及替代工具。但描述本身表明它用于生成外联邮件草稿,这隐含了使用场景。由于兄弟姐妹中没有直接类似工具(如generate_persona可能有部分重叠),缺少排除条件不算严重,但未明确给出条件仍是不足。

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