Skip to main content
Glama

reassign

by app.reassign
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Send feedback

send_feedback

Report a bug, limitation, friction, or idea about reassign itself — its tools, their results, or this MCP integration — to the product team, who read every message. Covers errors, confusing or wrong results, retries or workarounds, loops, and rough edges that could be smoother, plus feedback the user asks to send. This is meta-feedback ABOUT the product, not a way to change the schedule (use write_events for events). kind is "bug" | "idea" | "other". In message, describe what you tried, what happened, what you expected, and any event ids or steps to reproduce; send one concise report per issue rather than repeating it. Describe the problem in your own words — don't paste the user's personal details or private schedule contents; their account is attached automatically for follow-up. Returns {} once the report is accepted.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindYesType of feedback: "bug" for something broken or wrong, "idea" for a suggestion or feature request, "other" for anything else.
messageYesThe feedback itself. For a bug, say what happened, what you expected, and any event ids or steps that reproduce it.
submissionIdNoA UUID for this submission. Reuse it with identical content on retries within 24 hours; use a new UUID for a new report.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
    • addedInput schema / properties / submissionId
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "A UUID for this submission. Reuse it with identical content on retries within 24 hours; use a new UUID for a new report.",
+  "format": "uuid",
+  "pattern": "^([0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[1-8][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[89abAB][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12}|00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000|ffffffff-ffff-ffff-ffff-ffffffffffff)$",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries most of the burden. It adds useful behavioral context: the report goes to a product team that reads every message, the user's account is attached automatically for follow-up, and the tool returns {} once the report is accepted. It does not cover rate limits or API-level retry behavior, but submissionId in the schema addresses deduplication.

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?

The description is longer than average but every sentence carries distinct information: scope, exclusions, parameter guidance, privacy, and return value. It is front-loaded with the purpose and the schedule-change exclusion, and the added length is justified by the need for privacy and content guidance.

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?

Given a small 3-parameter schema, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description covers all the operational details an agent needs: what counts as feedback, what to exclude, how to phrase the message, that the user account is attached, and what the return value means. It is complete for selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value beyond the schema by explaining what to put in message (what was tried, expected, event ids, reproduction steps), the meaning of kind, and a privacy constraint about not pasting personal details. It doesn't restate submissionId's format, which the schema already covers.

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?

The description begins with a specific verb ('Report') and a clear resource: bugs, limitations, friction, or ideas about reassign itself and its MCP integration. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from schedule-changing operations by naming write_events, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings.

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?

It says exactly when to use the tool — for product/meta feedback about the product — and when not to: it is not a way to change the schedule, and write_events is named as the alternative. It also gives actionable guidance like sending one concise report per issue rather than repeating it and submitting user-requested feedback.

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

All reassign 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