raise_issueRaise an actionable issue against the documentation (wrong instructions, broken example, outdated page). Files a GitHub issue on nyuchi/nyuchi-docs when configured, otherwise queues it for the docs team.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | What is wrong and where | |
| page | No | Page path or URL the issue is about | |
| title | Yes | Short issue title |
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool files a GitHub issue when configured, otherwise queues it for the docs team. This gives useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the operation is idempotent.
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 two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately explains what the tool does and what happens with the issue. It could mention the expected return value or confirmation, but overall it's sufficient.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema for parameters; it only refers to 'actionable issue' in general. No further detail is provided about parameter usage or constraints.
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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: raising actionable documentation issues. It specifies the types of issues (wrong instructions, broken example, outdated page) and the action taken (GitHub issue or queue for docs team). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ask_docs, read_page, etc.
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 implies when to use the tool (when finding actionable issues in docs) and mentions behavior based on configuration. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternative sibling tools, which could improve guidance.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct action: Q&A, issue filing, page reading, searching, and feedback submission. There is no overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (ask_docs, raise_issue, read_page, search_docs, submit_feedback), making them predictable.
5 tools is well-scoped for a documentation server. It covers the primary user interactions without being excessive or insufficient.
The set covers core operations (search, read, ask, file issues, give feedback). Minor omission is a browse or list pages tool, but search compensates.