Ahel

Request a missing task or tool

catalog_request

Ask Ahel to add a data task or provider tool the catalog does not have yet: call it when capability_search answers verdict none and none of its nearest items fits. Give what you need in plain words, an example input, and the most you would pay for one call. Answers a request id; asking again for the same thing adds to that request instead of making a new one. Free; runs nothing and charges nothing. NOT for: finding what already exists, which is capability_search.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "what": "<what>"
    },
    "name": "catalog_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`what`	Yes	What you need done, in plain words: the job, not a provider name.
`example_input`	No	Optional: one example input, as text or an object (a domain, a profile URL, a name).
`max_price_usd`	No	Optional: the most you would pay for one call, in USD.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Adds behavior the annotations do not carry: returned request id, the repeat-call merge semantics ('asking again for the same thing adds to that request instead of making a new one'), and the cost profile ('Free; runs nothing and charges nothing'). This is consistent with readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false — a repeat call mutates the existing request rather than being a no-op — so no contradiction. It stops short of saying when or whether the request will actually be fulfilled, which is the main open question left.

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?

The whole definition is four sentences, each carrying distinct load: purpose, trigger/exclusion, call mechanics, cost. The precondition and the NOT-for routing are placed early, before the softer mechanics.

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?

No output schema, but the description says what comes back (a request id) and what the call costs. For a low-risk, non-executing submission tool this is nearly complete; only the post-submission lifecycle (how/when an accepted request becomes runnable) is unexplained.

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 all three parameters are already documented with their own descriptions. The body of the tool description echoes them ('what you need in plain words, an example input, and the most you would pay for one call') without adding format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

A specific verb and resource ('Ask Ahel to add a data task or provider tool the catalog does not have yet') with scope stated precisely. It distinguishes itself from the nearest sibling by naming capability_search and the exact verdict condition that fails over to this tool.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when capability_search answers verdict none and none of its nearest items fits') and an explicit exclusion ('NOT for: finding what already exists, which is capability_search'). The agent knows both when to call it and which sibling to pick instead.

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

All Ahel tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.