Skip to main content
Glama

VoteShip

by io.github.MattKilmer

Submit a feature request

submit_feature_request

Use this when the user wants to send new product feedback to a public VoteShip board without administering the project. Submit a feature request to any public VoteShip board. No API key needed. The post is created as PENDING and requires board owner approval. Include metadata.source to identify your agent.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailNoSubmitter's email (for follow-up notifications)
titleYesFeature request title (max 200 chars)
sourceNoName of the agent or app submitting this request (stored in metadata.source)
descriptionNoDetailed description of the feature request
project_slugNoProject slug (e.g. 'my-app'). Optional if VOTESHIP_PROJECT_SLUG env var is set.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultNoThe VoteShip API result for this operation

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Discloses key behavioral traits beyond annotations: the post is created as PENDING and requires board owner approval, no API key is needed, and metadata.source should identify the agent. The annotations (all false) provide almost no behavioral information, so the description carries the burden and does so thoroughly.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four sentences, front-loaded with 'Use this when...', and each sentence adds distinct value: usage trigger, action, auth, pending status, and metadata instruction. No filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the output schema and 100% parameter coverage, the description sufficiently covers the usage context, auth requirement, approval workflow, and metadata instruction. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all parameters. The description's instruction to 'include metadata.source' points to the 'source' parameter but adds no new meaning beyond its schema description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb 'submit' and resource 'feature request to any public VoteShip board'. The phrase 'send new product feedback' clarifies the use case and distinguishes this from sibling tools (comment, upvote, browse) without naming them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states when to use: 'when the user wants to send new product feedback...' and adds the context 'without administering the project' and 'No API key needed.' However, it doesn't name alternative sibling tools or exclusion scenarios, so it's clear but not exhaustive.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All VoteShip toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool maps to a distinct public action: viewing the board, submitting a request, voting, and commenting. There is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity between the four operations.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: add_public_comment, browse_board, submit_feature_request, upvote_post. The naming is predictable and easy to scan.

Tool Count5/5

Four tools is well-scoped for a public feedback board interaction surface. Each tool covers a needed user action without unnecessary bloat or duplication.

Completeness4/5

Core public workflows are covered: browse approved requests, submit a new request, vote, and comment. Minor gaps exist, such as no way to read existing comments or track the status of a pending submission, but these are not severe for the stated purpose.

Resources