RelayLink

Tell us what you think

send_feedback

Send the user's feedback about RelayLink itself — an idea, a gripe, something that worked — to the people who run this deployment. The same channel as open_support_request, filed as feedback rather than a problem, so it is read without anybody being paged. Send their words, and only when they say to: this reaches a person, and a remark about the product is not a request to send it. Not a package, and not a reply to anybody.

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

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`area`	No	Optionally what it is about: sending, receiving, contacts, notebook, search, assistant, portal, email, pricing, docs, other.
`message`	Yes	What the user thinks, in their words.
`summary`	No	One line naming it, at most 150 characters. Omit and the first line of the message is used.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive), so the description correctly focuses on delivery semantics: the message reaches a person and is 'read without anybody being paged.' That is genuinely useful context beyond the structured fields, though it does not mention duplicate-send risk or what confirmation the caller receives.

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?

Front-loads the action and scope in the first sentence, then adds the consent rule and exclusions. It is efficient overall, though the closing fragment 'Not a package, and not a reply to anybody' reads as an afterthought rather than a structured boundary statement.

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 one-required-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers destination, consent prerequisite, and sibling exclusions. The main remaining gap is that it does not describe the response or confirmation behavior after submission, which an agent might want before calling.

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%, so all three parameters (message, area, summary) are already documented. The description reinforces one important constraint — send the user's words verbatim — but does not add syntax or meaning for area or summary beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Send the user's feedback about RelayLink itself') and enumerates what counts as feedback ('an idea, a gripe, something that worked'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the closest sibling by noting it uses 'the same channel as open_support_request, filed as feedback rather than a problem.'

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 consent gate ('only when they say to... a remark about the product is not a request to send it') and states exclusions ('Not a package, and not a reply to anybody'). An agent can decide when to call this versus open_support_request without opening either schema.

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?