Skip to main content
Glama

call_model

Process user prompts to generate precise model responses using the FullScope-MCP server for content summarization and analysis.

Instructions

调用模型进行回答

Args:
    prompt: 要发送给模型的提示词

Returns:
    模型的回答

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
promptYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Implementation Reference

  • The `call_model` tool handler function, registered via `@mcp.tool()`. It calls the OpenAI chat completions API using the `summarizer.client` with the provided `prompt`, handling errors gracefully.
    @mcp.tool()
    async def call_model(prompt: str, ctx: Context) -> str:
        """
        调用模型进行回答
        
        Args:
            prompt: 要发送给模型的提示词
        
        Returns:
            模型的回答
        """
        try:
            response = summarizer.client.chat.completions.create(
                model=OPENAI_MODEL,
                messages=[
                    {"role": "user", "content": prompt}
                ],
                max_tokens=MAX_OUTPUT_TOKENS,
                temperature=0.7
            )
            
            return response.choices[0].message.content.strip()
            
        except Exception as e:
            logger.error(f"模型调用失败: {e}")
            return f"模型调用失败: {str(e)}"
  • The `@mcp.tool()` decorator registers the `call_model` function as an MCP tool.
    @mcp.tool()
  • Function signature and docstring define the input schema (prompt: str, ctx: Context) and output (str).
    async def call_model(prompt: str, ctx: Context) -> str:
        """
        调用模型进行回答
        
        Args:
            prompt: 要发送给模型的提示词
        
        Returns:
            模型的回答
        """
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool '调用模型进行回答' (calls a model for answering) but doesn't specify what model is used, whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, response formats beyond '模型的回答' (model's answer), or any error conditions. This leaves critical behavioral aspects 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?

The description is appropriately concise with a clear structure: a brief purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. However, the purpose statement is overly vague, and the parameter documentation is minimal, which slightly reduces its effectiveness despite the efficient format.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally complete. The output schema likely covers return values, reducing the need for detailed output explanation. However, for a model-calling tool, more context about the model type, capabilities, or limitations would be beneficial to fully understand its use.

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 description adds minimal value beyond the input schema. It states 'prompt: 要发送给模型的提示词' (prompt: the prompt to send to the model), which slightly clarifies the parameter's purpose but doesn't provide format requirements, length constraints, or examples. With 0% schema description coverage and only 1 parameter, this is adequate but leaves room for improvement.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description '调用模型进行回答' (call model for answering) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'call_model' without providing specific details about what kind of model is being called or what type of answers it produces. While it mentions '回答' (answers), it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'summarize_content' or 'topic_based_summary' that also involve model processing.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention any specific context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given sibling tools like 'summarize_content' and 'topic_based_summary' that appear to serve similar purposes, the lack of differentiation is a significant gap.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Related Tools

Latest Blog Posts

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/yzfly/fullscope-mcp-server'

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