Submit a redacted Aident Loadout bug report for product triage.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| report | Yes | Redacted Markdown bug report with observed and expected behavior. No tokens, credentials, or personal data. | |
| surface | No | Caller surface such as codex or claude-code. | |
| agentSessionId | No | Optional agent session id associated with the trace. |
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 readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is a write but non-destructive operation. The description adds the redaction requirement and the triage context, but does not disclose further behavioral traits like post-submission effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. This is adequate but not rich.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It quickly conveys the action, subject, and purpose in a compact form.
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 params, no output schema, good annotations), the description and schema together provide sufficient context for invocation. The only missing piece is what happens after submission (e.g., response format), but this is not critical for a straightforward submission action.
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% with each parameter clearly documented (e.g., report is 'Redacted Markdown bug report with observed and expected behavior...'). The description adds minimal additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 the tool's action ('Submit'), the object ('a redacted Aident Loadout bug report'), and the purpose ('for product triage'). This specific verb+resource+scope effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like audit, billing, or capabilities_*.
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 provides clear context: it is for submitting bug reports for triage, and the 'redacted' requirement implies appropriate content. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, the sibling tool names are distinct enough that the intended usage is unambiguous.
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 owns a distinct resource/action pair (e.g., search/get/preflight/execute for capabilities, read/feedback for skills, status/connect/disconnect for vault), and detailed descriptions make boundaries explicit. No two tools appear to do the same thing, and the preflight/execute separation is clearly delineated.
Naming mixes bare nouns (auth, billing, vault), prefixed subject-verb pairs (capabilities_execute, skills_feedback), and the outlier 'loadout_bug_submit' with inconsistent pluralization (capabilities vs skills vs loadout). Although all tokens are lowercase and underscore-separated, there is no single predictable pattern, and some tools (e.g., 'billing') are action containers while others are single-action functions.
Thirteen tools is well within the ideal 3–15 range, and each tool serves a clearly separable domain (authentication, billing, capabilities, skills, vault, audit, feedback, bug reporting). No tool feels redundant, and the count is appropriate for the breadth of functionality offered.
The surface covers the full lifecycle for capabilities (search/get/preflight/execute/feedback) and handles account, billing, vault, audit, and support needs. The only gap is lack of a general skill search or listing capability—skills can only be read by exact canonical identity, which may impede discovery—but core workflows are otherwise complete.
