Process my request to add or improve a feature.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| feature | Yes | description of requested feature improvement or new feature |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tool name | Yes | ||
| this request | Yes | ||
| tool collection | Yes | ||
| response content | Yes | ||
| response metadata | Yes | ||
| URLs of similar requests for web users | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate this is non-read-only, non-idempotent, and non-destructive, but the description adds little behavioral context. It says it 'processes' a request but does not disclose whether this creates a ticket, persists anything, triggers notification, or what side effects may occur. No contradiction with 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 sentence with no wasted words. However, it is somewhat low-value and repetitive with the tool name, offering only the core idea without additional useful structure or 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?
For a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the basic intent and parameter usage. It is incomplete in distinguishing requestFeature from sibling request tools and in explaining behavioral outcomes, but it is minimally adequate for invocation.
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 is 100%, and the 'feature' parameter is already described as 'description of requested feature improvement or new feature.' The tool description adds no further formatting, constraints, examples, or clarification beyond the schema's existing 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 clearly states a resource: 'request to add or improve a feature,' and the 'feature' scope helps distinguish it from sibling test-related tools. However, the verb 'Process' is generic and there is no explicit contrast with siblings like requestTest or requestRetest.
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 'add or improve a feature' implies the intended use case: when a user wants a new feature or an enhancement. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives, so usage context is only implied rather than fully specified.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools are mostly distinct with a clear hierarchy: listReports, getReport for reports; listIssues, listViolators, listDiagnoses for progressively deeper detail. However, getReport may overlap with the other list tools in purpose, and an agent might initially confuse listViolators vs listDiagnoses without careful reading.
All tools follow a consistent verb+noun camelCase pattern: get for single resources, list for enumerations, request for actions. The naming convention is uniform and predictable, making it easy to infer tool purpose.
8 tools is well-scoped for a testing/reporting server. Each tool serves a distinct function in the workflow (test request, report retrieval, drill-down into issues, violators, diagnoses, and feature requests) without redundancy or bloat.
The tool surface covers the core lifecycle: request test, retest, list reports, inspect full report, and drill into issues, violators, and diagnoses. The only minor gap is a lack of explicit update/delete operations for reports, but this may not be essential for the server's purpose.