lark-cli-mcp

by yoreland

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

JavaScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.1
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct action: sending, replying, retrieving messages, listing chats, searching messages, searching users, and viewing threads. No two tools have overlapping purposes, making it easy for an agent to select the correct one.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent 'feishu_verb_noun' pattern (e.g., feishu_send_message, feishu_list_chats). This uniform convention aids predictability and reduces cognitive load.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, the server is well-scoped for a messaging-focused MCP server. Each tool addresses a core function without redundancy, and the count is right-sized for the domain.
Completeness4/5
The set covers essential messaging operations: send, reply, retrieve messages, search, and list chats. Minor gaps exist (e.g., creating chats, marking messages as read), but the core workflow is fully supported.
Average 3.2/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- No commit activity data available
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions '用户身份' (user identity) but does not clarify authentication requirements, rate limits, result scoping, or handling of empty results. The behavioral information is minimal.
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 extremely concise: a single Chinese sentence. It is front-loaded with the core purpose but lacks structure. While efficient, it sacrifices helpful details that could fit without becoming verbose.
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 the tool's complexity (search with multiple optional filters, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain return format, pagination, or behavior when no results. Complete documentation would require more detail about expected output and edge cases.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 4 parameters (e.g., '搜索关键词'). However, the parameter descriptions are basic and add no additional semantic context beyond the schema fields. The tool description does not elaborate on parameter usage or constraints.
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 '跨群搜索飞书消息（用户身份）' clearly indicates it searches Feishu messages across groups with user identity. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'feishu_search_user' (user search) and 'feishu_get_messages' (likely single-chat retrieval), but does not explicitly specify whether it searches all accessible groups or requires chat_id.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools are listed but not compared. The optional chat_id parameter implies scope flexibility, but no advice is given on when to search all vs. specific groups.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but does not mention pagination, permission requirements, or the meaning of the count parameter (e.g., max replies returned).
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, front-loading the core purpose. It could benefit from more structure but is not verbose.
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 the lack of output schema and annotations, the description should explain return format, count parameter behavior, and thread structure. It is insufficient for complex selection.
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 adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema already states for message_id and count.
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 action (view) and resource (complete thread discussion of a message), effectively distinguishing it from siblings like feishu_get_messages or feishu_reply_message.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like feishu_get_messages or feishu_reply_message. The description omits context about prerequisites or appropriate scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'search by keyword' without explaining pagination, result limits, or behavior when no keyword is given. This is insufficient for an agent to predict tool 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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It clearly communicates the core function in a front-loaded manner.
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 no output schema or annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain return format, error conditions, or behavior when using no keyword. An agent would lack enough context for reliable invocation.
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 description adds 'find chat_id' which confirms the parameter's purpose. However, it does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides, hence baseline 3.
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 action (search/list) and resource (group chats) with the specific goal of finding chat_id by keyword. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on messages, threads, users, etc.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose implies it for finding chat_id, there is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only states '以用户身份发送', but does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, success/failure indications, or behavior when both text and markdown are supplied. Lacks details on whether this creates a new message vs replying.
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?
Single sentence is concise and covers purpose and supported formats. However, it omits essential behavioral details that could be included without length increase.
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 no output schema and no annotations, description is incomplete. It lacks guidance on valid parameter combinations, error handling, and authentication. For a 4-parameter tool with all optional, more context is needed for correct usage.
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. Description adds no extra meaning beyond schema; it mentions support for plain text and Markdown, but schema already has separate parameters with descriptions. No clarification on mutual exclusivity of chat_id and user_id.
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 uses the specific verb '发送' (send) and resource '飞书/Lark 消息到群聊或个人', clearly indicating the action and target. It supports both plain text and Markdown, and distinguishes from sibling tools like feishu_get_messages (retrieval) and feishu_reply_message (reply).
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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives like feishu_reply_message. Misses context for choice between chat_id and user_id or text vs markdown. No prerequisites or limitations mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist; description does not disclose behavioral traits like default message ordering, pagination behavior, rate limits, or whether all messages are retrieved. 'Recent' is vague.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no wasted words. Front-loaded with key information (what tool does). Appropriate for the content.
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?
No output schema; description does not explain return format, whether response includes full message content or just metadata, or how to handle pagination. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, description is too brief.
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%; each parameter has a clear description in the schema. Description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, meeting baseline for high coverage.
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?
Description specifies verb '查看' (view), resource '最近消息记录' (recent messages), and context '群聊或私聊' (group chats or private chats). Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like feishu_search_messages (search) and feishu_get_thread (thread messages).
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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as feishu_search_messages or feishu_get_thread. Does not mention prerequisites or suitable scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must convey behavior. It only states it replies and supports threads, omitting side effects, permissions, error handling, or whether the reply is appended to the original message.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise single sentence that front-loads the core action and key feature. No unnecessary 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?
For a mutation tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks context on return behavior, success/failure signals, or rate limits. Agents may miss important invocation details.
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 explains each parameter. The description adds no extra semantics beyond confirming thread support, meeting the baseline.
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 action (reply) and resource (Feishu message), and includes a key differentiator (thread support) that distinguishes it from siblings like feishu_send_message.
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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., feishu_send_message) or prerequisites (e.g., message_id must exist). The thread support mention is helpful but not sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states that the tool searches by name/email and returns open_id, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or behavior on multiple matches.
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 short sentence, which is concise. It conveys the core purpose without verbosity, though it could add minor details without losing conciseness.
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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the functionality. It states what the tool does and what it returns, which is sufficient for basic usage.
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?
The schema already describes the 'query' parameter as '用户名字或邮箱'. The description adds the same information without further detail, so it does not significantly augment the schema. Given 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 action (search), resource (Feishu users), and expected outcome (get open_id). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like feishu_search_messages by targeting users specifically.
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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the sibling tools are about messages, threads, and chats, making the purpose relatively clear, there is no mention of prerequisites or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![lark-cli-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/yoreland/lark-cli-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/yoreland/lark-cli-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![lark-cli-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/yoreland/lark-cli-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/yoreland/lark-cli-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/yoreland/lark-cli-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server