Uploads article bundle images to WeChat and creates a draft, returning the existing draft if the same content is submitted again. Use when you need to prepare an article for review without publishing.
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 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v0.1.0Does 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.