Provides integration with the WeChat Official Account API, enabling checking account access, validating article bundles, uploading images, creating drafts, and querying draft status without publishing.
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@wechat-official-account Validate the article bundle at /tmp/article, then create a draft and return the media_id."
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
通过本地 stdio MCP，将 WorkBuddy 等 MCP 客户端连接到微信公众号 API：检查连接、校验文章包、上传图片、创建和查询草稿。创建完成后由作者在公众号后台检查排版并手动发布。
工具 | 功能 | 是否写入微信 |
| 获取凭证并检查连接，不返回密钥或 token | 获取凭证 |
| 校验文章包、预处理图片、生成内容哈希 | 否 |
| 上传正文图和封面、创建草稿、读回核验标题 | 是 |
| 按 | 否 |
不提供正式发布、群发、删除素材、删除草稿或覆盖已有草稿的工具。
Related MCP server: wemp-operator-mcp
Node.js 20.17 或更高版本（建议使用仍受支持的 LTS 版本）和 npm。
支持本地 stdio MCP 的客户端，例如 WorkBuddy。
微信公众号 AppID、AppSecret，及当前网络出口 IP 的 API 白名单。
对应公众号具有素材上传及草稿接口权限。Token 获取成功并不代表拥有全部接口权限。
密钥重置和管理员验证由账号管理员在微信开发者平台完成。不要将密钥发到聊天、Issue 或 Pull Request。
git clone https://github.com/zhuanghaixin/wechat-official-mcp.git
cd wechat-official-mcp
npm ci
cp .env.example .env
chmod 600 .env用本地编辑器填写 .env：
WECHAT_APP_ID=your_app_id
WECHAT_APP_SECRET=your_app_secret.env 根据入口文件所在目录加载，不依赖客户端的工作目录。.env.example 只有占位符，不要将实际凭证填入示例文件。
运行连接检查：
npm run check成功时会显示 wechat_check_access 和 success: true，并返回凭证剩余有效秒数。
自动配置（会备份并保留已有 MCP 项目）：
node configure-workbuddy.mjs脚本写入 ~/.workbuddy/mcp.json，自动使用当前 Node 和入口文件的绝对路径；若同名连接器已存在则停止，避免覆盖。之后刷新 MCP 或重启 WorkBuddy。
也可以手动合并以下配置。先运行 command -v node 获取 Node 路径，将示例路径替换为真实绝对路径：
{
"mcpServers": {
"wechat-official-account": {
"type": "stdio",
"command": "/absolute/path/to/node",
"args": ["/absolute/path/to/wechat-official-mcp/index.mjs"]
}
}
}不要直接覆盖其他连接器。更新 Node 或移动项目后，也要更新启动路径。
在 WorkBuddy 对话中输入：
调用 wechat_check_access，检查微信公众号 API 连接，并展示实际工具返回结果。
文章目录必须位于本项目的父目录之内，包括本项目内的子目录。相对路径以项目父目录为基准；建议传绝对路径。真实路径检查也会限制符号链接，目录外文件不能被上传。
workspace/
├── wechat-official-mcp/
└── my-article/
├── metadata.json
├── article.html
├── cover.jpg
└── images/
└── 01.jpgmetadata.json：
{
"title": "文章标题",
"author": "作者",
"summary": "文章摘要",
"cover": { "file": "cover.jpg" }
}article.html 使用本地图片相对路径：
<section style="font-size:16px;line-height:1.8;">
<h2>文章小标题</h2>
<p>正文内容。</p>
<img src="./images/01.jpg" alt="配图说明" />
</section>字段与处理规则：
标题读取 title，兼容 recommended_title，最多 64 个字符；作者最多 8 个字符。
摘要读取 digest，兼容 summary，超过 120 个字符时截断并提示。
封面读取 cover.file，缺省为 cover.png。
正文图片从 HTML 的 img src 读取，不依赖 inline_images 字段；不下载远程图片。
图片在内存中转为 JPEG 并压缩至 1MB 以下，不改动源文件；透明背景变为白色。
移除脚本、外链样式和部分不适用的 HTML 属性。建议使用内联样式；此处理不是通用 HTML 安全净化器，应仅处理可信文章包。
正文过长会逐步精简装饰样式并返回警告；仍超过长度限制则停止。微信自身也可能调整排版，需要后台预览。
先运行仓库自带的演示包校验（不联网、不上传）：
node validate.mjs校验自己的文章：
node validate.mjs /absolute/path/to/my-article在 WorkBuddy 先校验：
调用 wechat_validate_article_bundle，bundle_path 为 /absolute/path/to/my-article，展示校验警告。
确认文章内容后创建草稿：
将 /absolute/path/to/my-article 上传到我的公众号草稿箱，调用 wechat_create_draft_from_bundle，返回 media_id 与核验结果，不正式发布。
然后查询：
调用 wechat_get_draft，media_id 为刚刚返回的草稿 ID。
创建工具会先查询草稿数量确认查询接口可用，再上传正文图片和永久封面素材、调用草稿创建接口，并读回核对标题。素材和创建权限最终以实际接口响应为准。
.state/ 保存本地内容哈希、草稿 ID 和创建状态，按账号隔离，默认不提交到 Git。
相同文章内容再次调用会复用已有草稿 ID。
创建请求发出后若结果未知，会阻止自动重试；先到微信后台核对，避免重复生成。
进程异常退出可能留下 .lock 文件。确认没有运行中的请求且已核对远端结果后，再人工处理状态。
图片上传中断可能留下素材，不会自动删除。
修改文章会生成新哈希和新草稿，不会更新旧草稿。
不要把 .state 当作临时缓存随意清除，否则会失去去重记录。
现象 | 排查方法 |
| 把错误结果中的 |
| 核对本地 AppSecret |
| 核对公众号 AppID |
| 检查该公众号是否具有对应接口权限 |
网络超时 | 检查 Node 的网络出口；它可能与浏览器代理出口不同 |
MCP 无法启动 | 检查 Node/入口文件绝对路径，并执行 |
工具列表仍只有旧工具 | 刷新 MCP 或重启客户端 |
文件路径超出允许目录 | 将文章移入项目父目录范围，并检查符号链接 |
草稿已创建但核验失败 | 按返回的 media_id 查询，不要立即再次创建 |
npm test测试使用自带演示文章和模拟微信响应，不依赖个人文章或真实密钥，不创建远程草稿。覆盖凭证检查、错误脱敏、路径限制、multipart 上传、草稿创建流程、内容去重及结果未知时的重试保护。
index.mjs MCP 工具注册
access.mjs 连接检查
bundle.mjs 文章校验与图片预处理
wechat-api.mjs 微信 API 调用
drafts.mjs 草稿流程与本地状态
check.mjs 真实连接检查客户端
validate.mjs 本地文章校验客户端
configure-workbuddy.mjs WorkBuddy 配置助手
examples/demo/ 无私人内容的演示文章包仓库仅包含源码、锁文件、测试、演示包与文档。不要提交 .env、.state/、本地 MCP 配置、真实文章素材、日志或配置备份；也不要使用 git add -f 绕过忽略规则。
验证公众号凭证和 API IP 白名单，结果不包含密钥或 Access Token。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating that the result does not include secret keys or Access Tokens, which is valuable security-relevant information beyond the annotations.
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?
The description is a single, focused sentence. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds a useful security caveat without any redundancy or filler.
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?
For a zero-parameter, read-only validation tool, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what is checked and what is intentionally omitted from the result. Minor absence: it does not describe the exact success/failure output shape, but that is not critical for such a simple check.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so parameter-level explanation is unnecessary. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate, and the description appropriately avoids inventing parameter details.
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 uses a specific verb ('验证' / validate) and names concrete resources: WeChat Official Account credentials and API IP whitelist. This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which all deal with article bundles or drafts.
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?
The description makes the tool's context clear: it is a pre-flight access check for credentials and IP whitelist. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the sibling tools are so different that the intended usage is evident.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
将文章包图片上传至微信并创建草稿，需要用户明确要求上传该文章。不会正式发布。相同内容重复调用返回既有草稿。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bundle_path | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: the tool is idempotent ('相同内容重复调用返回既有草稿'), requires explicit user consent, and will not publish. These are important operational traits that the annotations alone do not convey.
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?
Three short sentences cover the action, the prerequisite, the non-publish guarantee, and idempotency. Every sentence adds distinct value, and the most important information is front-loaded.
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?
For a single-parameter tool with no output schema and informative annotations, the description is nearly complete: it defines the operation, the user-consent requirement, the non-publishing scope, and duplicate-call behavior. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning what the tool returns (e.g., draft ID), but this is a minor gap.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides only a required string 'bundle_path' with minLength 1. The description mentions 'article bundle images' but does not clarify what bundle_path should point to, what format is expected, or how it relates to validation tools. The description does not adequately compensate for the missing parameter documentation.
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: uploading article bundle images to WeChat and creating a draft. It clearly differentiates itself from siblings like wechat_validate_article_bundle and wechat_get_draft, and explicitly notes that it will not publish, so an agent knows exactly what this tool does and does not do.
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?
The description gives an explicit precondition: the user must clearly request uploading the article. It also explains that the tool creates drafts only and will not publish, which helps the agent choose it over publishing or validation tools. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer sibling tools such as wechat_get_draft or wechat_validate_article_bundle.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
根据 media_id 从微信读取草稿内容。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| media_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that this operates on WeChat draft content, but doesn't mention error conditions, return shape, or external dependencies like auth/tokens.
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?
One concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler or redundancy.
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?
For a simple one-parameter read operation, the description plus annotations are sufficient for basic selection. It could mention return value or failure behavior, but those are not critical for understanding what the tool does.
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 coverage for the parameter is 0%; the description only repeats 'media_id' without explaining its source, format, or lifecycle. It adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter name.
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 clearly states the action ('read') and the resource ('draft content from WeChat') with an explicit parameter ('media_id'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create/validate/check.
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?
The intended use is obvious: retrieve a draft using its media_id. It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternative tools, but the reading/retrieval context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
本地校验文章包并预处理图片，不上传。bundle_path 为公众号工作目录内的文章文件夹路径。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bundle_path | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds valuable behavior beyond them: local execution, no upload, and image preprocessing. It also clarifies that bundle_path refers to an article folder inside the official-account working directory rather than an arbitrary path.
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?
Two short, purposeful sentences: the first identifies the operation and exclusions, the second defines the sole parameter. There is no filler, repetition of schema, or unnecessary detail.
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 definition covers local/no-upload behavior and the parameter, which is adequate for a one-parameter tool, but it does not describe what the tool returns on success/failure or what 'preprocess' entails. Since there is no output schema, an agent is left without knowledge of the validation result format.
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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning. It explains bundle_path as '公众号工作目录内的文章文件夹路径' (article folder path within the official-account working directory), which is far more useful than the bare string type. It does not specify relative vs. absolute formatting, but is sufficient for invocation.
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 verb, 'validate', and a concrete operation, 'preprocess images', with a clear scope: local only, '不上传' (no upload). This distinguishes it from siblings like wechat_create_draft_from_bundle without requiring schema inspection.
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?
The phrase '本地校验...不上传' gives useful context that this is a local pre-upload step, but it never names alternatives or explicitly says when to use this tool versus checking access or creating a draft. The usage conditions are implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v0.1.0wechat_check_accesswechat_create_draft_from_bundlewechat_get_draftwechat_validate_article_bundleScored across 4 tools
The four tools are distinct: checking credentials, validating content, creating drafts, and reading drafts. The only potential confusion is between validation and creation, but descriptions clarify that one is local/no upload and the other uploads/creates.
All tools use the prefix 'wechat_' followed by a verb-noun structure (check_access, validate_article_bundle, create_draft_from_bundle, get_draft). However, the structure is not perfectly uniform: 'create_draft_from_bundle' is more verbose than 'get_draft', and the patterns vary slightly in noun phrases.
With 4 tools, the server is lean and focused on the core workflow of creating drafts from article bundles. The count feels slightly thin for a fuller WeChat integration (e.g., missing publish or media management), but it's appropriate for the stated purpose.
The tools cover validation, creation, and retrieval of drafts, which is a reasonable lifecycle. However, obvious gaps include the ability to update/delete drafts or formal publish, and there's no tool for managing the article bundle beyond validation/creation.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Remote MCP server for China brand visibility, destination demand, and KOL discovery workflows.
Create, schedule, and publish social posts, manage accounts, and read analytics as MCP tools.
One MCP URL for all your connectors — scoped writes, enforced constraints, and a full audit trail.
WhatsApp (Web + Business API), SMS, contacts, and call records via 2Chat's MCP server.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/zhuanghaixin/wechat-official-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
