Skip to main content
Glama
haoan33

OmniQQ-MCP

by haoan33
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

send_msg

Send private or group QQ messages through OneBot 11 by specifying message_type, target_id, and message content, with optional CQ code escaping.

Instructions

通用消息发送接口 (OneBot 11: send_msg)，可根据 message_type 发送私聊或群聊消息。 :param message_type: 消息类型，'private' (私聊) 或 'group' (群聊) :param target_id: 当 message_type='private' 时为对方 QQ 号；为 'group' 时为目标群号 :param message: 要发送的文本、CQ 码或 OneBot 消息段数组 :param auto_escape: 是否不解析 CQ 码，默认 False

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
messageYes要发送的文本、CQ 码或 OneBot 消息段数组
target_idYes当 message_type='private' 时为对方 QQ 号；为 'group' 时为目标群号
auto_escapeNo是否不解析 CQ 码，默认 False
message_typeYes消息类型，'private' (私聊) 或 'group' (群聊)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv1.1.0
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • addedInput schema / properties / message / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "items": {
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "type": "array"
+  }
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / message / description
      Previous value: -"要发送的消息文本或 CQ 码"New value: +"要发送的文本、CQ 码或 OneBot 消息段数组"
    • removedInput schema / properties / message / type
      Removed value: -"string"
  2. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
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 behavioral burden. It documents parameter meanings but discloses nothing about failure modes, whether login/connection state is required, rate limits, or return behavior — significant gaps for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 purpose sentence is stated first, which is good, but the trailing :param: block duplicates the input schema field-for-field and consumes most of the text. Roughly half the content earns little beyond what structured fields already convey.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Parameters are fully covered, but with no annotations and no output schema the description should still say something about the result of a send or the conditions under which it fails. For a simple 4-param write tool it is adequate but not complete.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the :param: block repeats the schema descriptions for message_type, target_id, message, and auto_escape almost verbatim. It confirms required/conditional semantics (target_id meaning flips with message_type) but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('通用消息发送接口', send_msg) and explains it routes to private or group delivery based on message_type. It is clear, but it never distinguishes itself from the obvious siblings send_private_msg and send_group_msg, which an agent must choose between.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool is a generic interface that picks private vs group via message_type. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this over the specialized send_private_msg / send_group_msg siblings, so the agent must infer the tradeoff.

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