Skip to main content
Glama

turnale

by app.turnale

Record product feedback

record_feedback

Record a request for something Turnale does not support yet (a format, scoring variant, or feature), so it can be considered for the roadmap. Call this only when the organiser asked for something unsupported AND agreed to have it noted. Describe the missing capability in general terms — NEVER include player names, contact details, or tournament keys.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
categoryYes
feedbackYesWhat the organiser wanted, summarised without any personal data (max 1000 characters — room for the problem, the workaround tried, and the suggested scope)
related_toolNoThe tool this relates to, if any

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
summaryYes
recordedYes

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations (all false) provide minimal safety info, so the description carries the burden. It adds crucial behavioral guidance: never include player names, contact details, or tournament keys, and describe missing capability in general terms. This goes well beyond the simple write operation implied by readOnlyHint=false.

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?

The description is three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, condition, and content constraints. It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids any filler or repetition.

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?

For a simple feedback-recording tool, the description covers purpose, usage condition, and content constraints completely. An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. No gaps remain.

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?

The schema already describes 'feedback' and 'related_tool', and the enum for 'category' is self-explanatory. The description adds practical parameter guidance by instructing that the feedback should be a general summary without personal data, which directly clarifies how to fill the 'feedback' field.

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 clearly states the tool records a request for unsupported functionality, using specific verbs and resource ('Record a request for something Turnale does not support yet'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools by focusing on roadmap feedback, which none of the tournament/player management siblings handle.

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?

The description provides explicit usage conditions: 'Call this only when the organiser asked for something unsupported AND agreed to have it noted.' This makes the when-to-use unambiguous, and although no alternative tools are named, the condition inherently excludes cases where the feature is supported.

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

All turnale toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools serve overlapping purposes: get_pdf and get_pdf_link both return PDF artifacts, get_schedule and list_matches both provide match scheduling info, and get_results vs. get_standings can be confused for finished tournaments. However, the descriptions clarify the distinctions (embedded vs. link, upcoming vs. all matches, final vs. current standings), and roster-management tools are clearly separated by action.

Naming Consistency5/5

All 30 tools consistently use lowercase snake_case with a verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_tournament, record_results, withdraw_player). The only slight variation is the mix of get_* and list_* for read operations, but that's a common and predictable convention. There are no camelCase or inconsistent verb styles.

Tool Count2/5

With 30 tools, the server exceeds the 'too many' threshold of 25. While the domain is complex, this count is heavy and may overwhelm agents, especially since several tools could be consolidated (e.g., get_pdf/get_pdf_link, get_schedule/list_matches). A more streamlined set around 20 tools would be more appropriate.

Completeness5/5

The tool set provides comprehensive lifecycle coverage for tournament management: create/delete/end tournaments, manage players (add, remove, replace, withdraw, promote, update), generate draws, record results, handle doubles pairs, reschedule, retrieve standings/schedule/results, export/PDF, audit log, undo changes, and feedback. No major gaps are apparent for the stated purpose.

Resources