Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
wechat-miniapp-engineering-mcp

wechat-miniapp-engineering-mcp

by lychee20000105
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

miniapp_inspect_project

Scan local WeChat mini program projects to identify pages, tabBar, cloud functions, business modules, and provide actionable improvement suggestions.

Instructions

扫描本地微信原生/云开发小程序工程，输出页面、tabBar、云函数、业务模块和下一步建议。

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "miniapp_inspect_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectPathNo小程序项目根目录，默认读取包内 demo fixture。
includeReadmeNo是否包含 README 摘要，默认 true。

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.6.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states what the tool does (scan and output) but does not disclose whether it modifies anything, required permissions, or performance implications. The description is moderately transparent but lacks details on side effects or assumptions.

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 a single concise sentence that conveys the main purpose. It is front-loaded and efficient, though slightly more structure (e.g., listing inputs and outputs separately) could improve clarity.

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?

For a tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description lists the key outputs (pages, tabBar, cloud functions, etc.), providing reasonable completeness. The scope of the tool is clear, though the return format is not described.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific context beyond what the schema already provides. The tool parameters (projectPath, includeReadme) are adequately explained in the schema.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'scan' and the resource 'local WeChat mini-program project', listing specific outputs (pages, tabBar, cloud functions, business modules, suggestions). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on inspection.

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?

The description implies usage for inspecting a mini-program project but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like miniapp_security_quick_scan or miniapp_project_map. No when-not-to-use or alternative mentions.

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