Send Markdown content to Feishu group chats as interactive cards, with optional title and color templates.
向飞书群发送 Markdown 格式消息（通过交互卡片的 lark_md 渲染）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Markdown 格式的消息内容 | |
| title | No | 卡片标题（可选） | |
| template | No | 标题栏颜色，默认 blue |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the key side effect (sending to a Feishu group) and the rendering path (interactive card with lark_md), which is useful. It does not mention failure behavior, permissions, rate limits, or how successful delivery is reported, but these are not critical for a basic send action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The rendering note is compact and relevant, making the description easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is low-complexity with one required parameter and all parameters documented in the schema. The description, combined with the schema, gives enough to invoke it correctly, though it omits return-value and explicit sibling-selection notes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add details about text, title, or template beyond what the schema already provides. This is acceptable because the schema is self-sufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('向飞书群发送') and a resource/content type (Markdown messages), and adds the rendering mechanism ('通过交互卡片的 lark_md 渲染'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like send_text and send_image.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and none of the sibling tools are named. The intended use for Markdown content is implied by the name and description, but an agent is not told how to choose between this and send_card or send_post.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.