Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
hzy9981

hzy9981

by hzy9981
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

call_dashscope_mcp

Invoke a tool on DashScope's remote MCP service by providing the tool name and arguments to retrieve results.

Instructions

调用 DashScope 的远程 MCP 服务并获取结果。

Args: tool_name: DashScope MCP 中的工具名称 arguments: 传递给工具的参数字典

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": {
      "tool_name": "<tool_name>",
      "arguments": "<arguments>"
    },
    "name": "call_dashscope_mcp"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
argumentsYes
tool_nameYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided. The description only says it calls a remote service and gets results, without disclosing potential side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or dependence on the called tool's behavior.

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?

The description is brief and front-loaded with purpose. It efficiently uses two sentences plus arg list. No wasted words.

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?

Given it is a meta-tool calling other tools, the description lacks context about available tools, error handling, output details (though output schema exists), and prerequisites. Sibling tools are many specific ones, but no cross-reference provided.

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%. The description adds minimal meaning: 'tool_name' is the tool name, 'arguments' is the dict to pass. It does not clarify the source of valid tool names or constraints on arguments.

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 clearly states that the tool calls a remote MCP service and gets results, with arguments tool_name and arguments. It is a generic caller, distinct from the specific sibling tools, but does not explicitly differentiate itself.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus the specific sibling tools (e.g., create_prompt, delete_prompt). The description merely explains what it does, not when to use it.

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