Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Fudge for Shopify

by ai.fudge
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Send feedback to Fudge

send_feedback

Send the Fudge team a problem with its tools, a capability you needed, or feedback the merchant asked you to pass on.

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": {
      "type": "<type>",
      "message": "<message>"
    },
    "name": "send_feedback"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeYesbroken: a Fudge tool failed or did the wrong thing. stuck: you couldn’t finish the task with Fudge’s tools. hard: the tools made the task much harder than it should be. missing: the task needed something Fudge’s tools can’t do. merchant: the merchant asked you to pass this on; only when they ask.
storeNoThe connected store to use. Defaults to the first one.
messageYesUp to 250 words, starting with a one-line summary. For a problem: what you did, what the tools returned and what would have made it easy. For missing: the task, what you did instead and what the tool could look like. For merchant: their words as they put them. Leave out personal details nobody asked you to send.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent, closed-world write, and the description adds that the submission goes to the vendor team rather than to the merchant. It says nothing about what happens after sending — no acknowledgement, no rate limit, no follow-up expectation — which is the main behavioral question for a fire-and-forget feedback channel.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler and no repetition of the title. It is tight, though the three-part enumeration is dense enough that a short clause on what happens after submission would have been worth the space.

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 three-parameter submission tool with full schema documentation and no output schema to explain, the description covers who receives the feedback and what belongs in it. The remaining gap is outcome expectations — whether the agent should tell the merchant it was sent or wait for a reply.

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 100% and the type enum plus message field carry detailed per-case authoring guidance, so the description does not need to restate parameters. Its only added meaning is the merchant-passing use case, which is already covered in the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (send) and recipient (the Fudge team) and enumerates the three payload kinds: a tool problem, a missing capability, or merchant-passed feedback. The intent is unmistakable, though it never names the nearby sibling message_fudge to say which one to pick for a conversational request.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Use-for conditions are implied by the three payload kinds, and 'the merchant asked you to pass on' hints at the trigger for that case. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no statement that this is not a channel for getting help, and the per-type routing rules live only in the schema enum, not the description.

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

All Fudge for Shopify toolsInspect
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