Skip to content

fix: MCP createCloudFunction 工具参数设计不清晰导致 HTTP 云函数创建失败#623

Open
binggg wants to merge 1 commit intomainfrom
automation/attribution-issue-mo8ywjss-siyh6g-mcp-createcloudfunction-http
Open

fix: MCP createCloudFunction 工具参数设计不清晰导致 HTTP 云函数创建失败#623
binggg wants to merge 1 commit intomainfrom
automation/attribution-issue-mo8ywjss-siyh6g-mcp-createcloudfunction-http

Conversation

@binggg
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@binggg binggg commented Apr 28, 2026

Attribution issue

  • issueId: issue_mo8ywjss_siyh6g
  • category: tool
  • canonicalTitle: MCP createCloudFunction 工具参数设计不清晰导致 HTTP 云函数创建失败
  • representativeRun: atomic-js-cloudbase-http-function-params/2026-04-21T18-38-57-1k9fho

Automation summary

  • root_cause: The MCP manageFunctions tool's parameter descriptions were unclear about the requirements for creating HTTP cloud functions. Specifically: (1) The func parameter description didn't explain which fields are required for HTTP functions (type, protocolType, runtime), and (2) The functionRootPath parameter description didn't clearly indicate it's required for HTTP function creation.
  • changes: Updated the tool descriptions in mcp/src/tools/functions.ts:
  1. Enhanced func parameter description to clearly list required fields for HTTP functions: name, type: "HTTP", protocolType: "HTTP", and runtime
  2. Added a warning to functionRootPath description that it's required (along with zipFile) when creating HTTP functions
  • validation:
  • TypeScript compilation: tsc --noEmit passes without errors
  • Skill tests: All 10 tests pass (build-skills-repo, build-compat-config, skill-quality-standards)
  • follow_up: The fix improves tool parameter clarity at the MCP layer. The skill documentation at config/source/skills/cloud-functions/references/http-functions.md already had correct examples, but the MCP tool description now makes the requirements m

Changed files

  • mcp/src/tools/functions.ts

@chatgpt-codex-connector
Copy link
Copy Markdown

You have reached your Codex usage limits for code reviews. You can see your limits in the Codex usage dashboard.

@binggg
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

binggg commented Apr 28, 2026

Attribution post-PR evaluation

  • visibility: internal identifiers, run ids, and private links are intentionally omitted
  • attempt: 1
  • eval_scope: primary_plus_regression
  • overall: FAILED
  • summary: at least one planned evaluation case failed
  • updated_at: 2026-04-28T16:05:39.522Z

Cases

  • [PASSED] — primary — evaluation passed
  • [FAILED] — regression 1 — evaluation failed

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant