Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
coolapk-mcp-pro

coolapk-mcp-pro

by yufeng-liang
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

coolapk_home

Fetch Coolapk home feed posts by tab (recommend, hot, new) and page to browse community updates.

Instructions

获取酷安首页动态。

Args: tab: 类型，可选 recommend(推荐) hot(热门) latest(最新) page: 页码

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": "coolapk_home"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tabNorecommend
pageNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.6.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination size/limits, or whether results are personalized. An output schema exists, so return-value shape is covered elsewhere, but the operational behavior is essentially undocumented.

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?

Two lines total with the resource statement front-loaded and parameters enumerated compactly. No filler; the only quibble is that the Args block is raw docstring formatting rather than prose tailored to an agent.

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?

For a two-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose and parameter values adequately. It is still thin on the operational side (no auth/pagination notes) and gives no signal about how homepage content differs from other feed endpoints.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it enumerates the tab enum values (recommend/hot/latest) with Chinese glosses and identifies page as the page number. Minor gap: no mention of page size, whether paging is 1-indexed (schema default implies it), or end-of-feed behavior.

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: 获取酷安首页动态 (fetch the Coolapk homepage feed). That is clearly distinct from siblings like coolapk_user_feeds, coolapk_topic, or coolapk_search, though the description never explicitly names those alternatives to reinforce the distinction.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus coolapk_search, coolapk_topic, or coolapk_user_feeds, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only selection help is the tab enumeration, which guides parameter choice rather than tool choice.

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