Skip to main content
Glama
haoan33

OmniQQ-MCP

by haoan33
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

upload_private_file

Send a local file as an attachment to a specific QQ friend, specifying the absolute file path and the display filename the recipient will see.

Instructions

向指定好友发送本地文件附件 (NapCat OneBot 11: upload_private_file)。 :param user_id: 接收方好友 QQ 号 :param file_path: 本地文件的绝对路径（例如 /path/to/report.xlsx） :param file_name: 对方看到的显示文件名 (如 'report.xlsx')

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
user_idYes接收方好友 QQ 号
file_nameYes对方看到的显示文件名 (如 'report.xlsx')
file_pathYes本地文件的绝对路径（例如 `/path/to/report.xlsx`）

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.1.0
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • changedInput schema / properties / file_path / description
      Previous value: -"本地文件的绝对路径 (如 'D:/Desktop/report.xlsx')"New value: +"本地文件的绝对路径（例如 `/path/to/report.xlsx`）"
  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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it only notes the file is local. It does not disclose file-size limits, whether file_path must already exist, failure behavior, or that this is a send/mutation operation with side effects.

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 front-loaded and compact, but the three :param lines duplicate the input schema one-to-one, spending length on information already available in structured data.

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?

Core purpose and all required parameters are covered, and there is no output schema to explain. However, for an un-annotated send tool it omits operational context (limits, side effects, error handling) an agent would benefit from.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description repeats the same meanings (the :param lines mirror the schema verbatim) and adds no new syntax, format, or constraint details.

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: send a local file attachment to a specified friend, with the underlying NapCat OneBot action named. It is clearly distinguishable from the group sibling by the '好友/private' scope, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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: '向指定好友' signals this is for private friends, letting an agent infer that upload_group_file handles groups. There is no explicit when-to-use, prerequisite, or exclusion statement.

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