RelayLink

Ask for help

open_support_request

Open a support request with the people who run this RelayLink deployment, when something is wrong or the user is stuck. Attaches which deployment and build this is and a few facts about their account, so they do not have to be asked. Returns a reference; the answer comes by email to the account address and through support_status. Ask the user before calling: this writes to a person, so it needs their word, not a guess from something you read.

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": {
      "category": "<category>",
      "subject": "<subject>",
      "message": "<message>"
    },
    "name": "open_support_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`message`	Yes	What the user did, what they expected, and what happened instead.
`subject`	Yes	One line naming the problem, as a subject would.
`category`	Yes	What it is about: problem, question, delivery, account, abuse, security, billing, other.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare the mechanical profile (write, open-world, non-idempotent); the description goes well beyond that by disclosing the real-world consequence — this reaches a human, the reply arrives by email to the account address, and a reference is returned. The mandatory user-consent gate is exactly the kind of high-stakes behavioral context annotations cannot express.

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?

Four tight sentences ordered by importance: what it does, what it auto-collects, what comes back, then the consent constraint. No filler, and the highest-consequence rule is not buried.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Despite no output schema, the description still explains the return shape (a reference) and the asynchronous follow-up path (email plus support_status). Consent, use condition, and side effects are all covered — nothing needed to call this correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, and the description earns the bump by noting it auto-attaches deployment, build, and account facts "so they do not have to be asked" — telling the agent not to stuff environment details into message. It doesn't touch category or subject specifics, which the schema already handles.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Open a support request") and pins the audience precisely — "the people who run this RelayLink deployment" — which separates it from generic feedback or reply threads. It also distinguishes itself from support_status by naming that sibling as the read path for the answer.

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?

"when something is wrong or the user is stuck" gives a clear triggering condition, and the consent rule ("Ask the user before calling... it needs their word, not a guess from something you read") is an explicit prerequisite. It stops short of naming alternatives like send_feedback or reply_to_support, so a 5 is not warranted.

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

All RelayLink 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?