给 DeepSeek 装上眼睛 — MCP Server + 通义千问VL, 剪贴板图片 → 视觉模型 → 文字描述 / Give DeepSeek the ability to see images via clipboard + Qwen-VL
Server provides 12 vision-focused tools for clipboard and file-based image analysis via Qwen-VL. However, critical quality gaps severely limit production readiness. Tool descriptions are bilingual (Chinese/English) and moderately detailed, but parameter documentation is sparse or missing. Input schemas are present but lack constraint information (enums, patterns, ranges). Output schemas are completely undocumented, critical for LLM planning. Error handling is absent from tool definitions. The codebase shows security awareness (file validation, magic number checks) but tools expose path parameters without sufficient guidance on what inputs are valid. Naming is clear and verb-based ('analyze_*', 'extract_*', 'describe_*'), which is a strength. However, clipboard tools lack parameter descriptions entirely, and file tools do not document format constraints, path restrictions, or error conditions.
分析数据图表中的趋势和洞察 / Analyze a chart image file
读取系统剪贴板中的图片并分析。当用户说'看看这个'、'剪贴板里有什么'、或粘贴截图时使用。可选参数 prompt 可自定义提问。 / Analyze the image in system clipboard.
分析磁盘上的图片文件 / Analyze an image file on disk.
从剪贴板代码截图中提取可编辑的代码 / Extract code from clipboard screenshot.
从磁盘代码截图提取代码 / Extract code from a screenshot file
描述磁盘上 UI 截图文件 / Describe a UI screenshot file
Missing output schema documentation for all tools. Tools return string responses but LLMs cannot plan downstream operations without knowing the response structure. No documentation of what fields, JSON object structure, or data format callers should expect.
Clipboard tools (5 tools) have empty or missing parameter descriptions. extract_text_from_clipboard, describe_ui_from_clipboard, diagnose_error_from_clipboard, and code_from_clipboard define inputSchema with no properties, yet are callable, this violates JSON Schema best practices and provides zero guidance to LLMs on what data they accept or produce.
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-23 | D | 54 | 2026-07-28+ | v2 |
描述剪贴板中 UI 截图的布局、组件和状态 / Describe UI from clipboard screenshot.
诊断磁盘上错误截图文件 / Diagnose an error screenshot file
诊断剪贴板中错误截图的原因和修复方案 / Diagnose error screenshot from clipboard.
从磁盘图片中提取文字(OCR) / OCR an image file on disk
从剪贴板图片中提取文字(OCR) / Extract text from clipboard image (OCR).
解读流程图/架构图等图表 / Interpret a diagram image file
No input validation or error handling guidance in tool definitions. Code validates file paths, image sizes, and magic numbers server-side, but tools do not document what errors can occur, when to retry, or what the user should fix. Error responses will be raw exceptions, not actionable guidance.
File path parameters lack format constraints and safety guidance. 'image_path' accepts absolute paths but tools do not document: allowed extensions (.png, .jpg, etc.), max file size (20 MB per code), where paths are resolved from (current working directory? home?), or what happens if the path is outside a safe directory. LLMs may pass invalid paths, requiring unclear retries.
API key (MODELSCOPE_BASE_URL and VISION_MODEL) is injected via environment variables, which is correct; however, tool descriptions do not clarify that these must be configured by the server operator. No documentation of required environment variables, default fallbacks, or what happens if credentials are missing.
No distinction between tools operating on the same resource. 'analyze_image' and 'analyze_chart' both accept an image and return analysis, but descriptions do not clarify: is analyze_chart only for financial/business charts, or any chart? Does 'understand_diagram' include architectural diagrams, flowcharts, entity-relationship diagrams, or all? LLMs may pick the wrong tool.