Skip to main content
Glama

SiteGPT Docs

by io.github.sitegpt

Submit documentation feedback

submit_feedback

Report a problem with this documentation site so the docs team can fix it. Use when a documentation page is incorrect, outdated, confusing, incomplete, or has a broken example. This is for feedback about the documentation content itself — not for product support requests or feedback about this tool or assistant.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesThe documentation page path the feedback is about (e.g., the page you were reading, such as `/quickstart`).
feedbackYesA clear description of the documentation issue or suggestion — what is incorrect, outdated, missing, or confusing.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only but non-destructive operation, and the description adds the context that feedback goes to the docs team. However, it does not disclose details like whether submission is asynchronous, whether confirmation is returned, or what happens after submission.

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?

Three focused sentences, with the core action front-loaded and the exclusions clearly separated. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant phrasing.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple two-parameter feedback tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool is for, when to use it, and when not to use it. It might ideally mention what response or follow-up the user can expect, but this is a minor gap.

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%, and both parameters are already well-described in the schema. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning, but it does not need to since the schema carries the full burden.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Report a problem with this documentation site.' It clearly differentiates this tool from its siblings by scoping it to documentation feedback rather than querying or searching docs.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description gives explicit when-to-use conditions: incorrect, outdated, confusing, incomplete, or broken example. It also provides explicit exclusions: not for product support requests or feedback about the tool/assistant itself.

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

All SiteGPT Docs 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

A4.5/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

query_docs_filesystem and search_site_gpt_docs both retrieve documentation content, but their descriptions make the distinction clear: one is exact/regex/filesystem-oriented reading, the other is broad semantic search. submit_feedback is completely distinct.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case: query_docs_filesystem, search_site_gpt_docs, submit_feedback. The naming is uniform and predictable despite the long first name.

Tool Count5/5

Three tools is well-scoped for a documentation server: two complementary retrieval methods and one feedback channel. Every tool has a clear purpose and none are redundant or excessive.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full documentation workflow: exploring/searching, reading specific pages, and reporting issues. No obvious gaps exist for the stated purpose of interacting with SiteGPT Docs.

Resources