AlphaWeb

support_report

Send a recent failure to AlphaWeb support only when the user requests it. No secrets or transcripts. Repeat the same support_ref to read its delivery receipt; free of AWT.

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": {
      "workspace": "<workspace>",
      "support_ref": "<support_ref>",
      "confirmed": "<confirmed>"
    },
    "name": "support_report"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`summary`	No
`confirmed`	Yes	The user asked to send this issue to the AlphaWeb team.
`workspace`	Yes
`support_ref`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's added privacy constraint ("No secrets or transcripts") and the support_ref reuse semantics for reading a receipt genuinely extend what the agent knows. "Free of AWT" signals a cost behavior but uses unexplained jargon that an agent may not decode.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and its gating condition, with no filler. The only weak spot is the unexplained acronym "AWT," which costs clarity without costing length.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For an external-send tool with no output schema and 25% parameter coverage, the description covers gating, privacy, idempotency, and cost but leaves open what the delivery receipt contains, what `workspace` scopes, and what happens on failed delivery. Adequate minimum, not complete.

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 coverage is only 25% (just `confirmed`), so the description must carry the load. It explains support_ref's role as a repeatable receipt key, but says nothing about `workspace` or what belongs in `summary` (beyond the implicit 'no transcripts' exclusion), leaving half the surface unexplained.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource: send a recent failure to AlphaWeb support. The scope (only on explicit user request) makes the action distinguishable from any background or automatic reporting. No relevant sibling exists to differentiate against, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

"Only when the user requests it" is an explicit gating condition, and "Repeat the same support_ref to read its delivery receipt" tells the agent how to re-invoke for a different outcome. It lacks a named alternative tool, but no sibling offers a comparable action.

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

All AlphaWeb 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.

Resources

Need Help?