Baldwin Pergolas

Report a product guidance or tool problem

report_pergola_problem

Report an actual problem for Baldwin development review: conflicting product guidance, failed tools, missing information or broken design links. Record both claims and public source titles/reference IDs for conflicts; do not choose a disputed structural specification. This saves a private report and alerts the owner. No transcripts, identities, addresses, credentials or private server paths. Do not report hypothetical examples as real problems.

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": {
      "problem_type": "<problem_type>",
      "topic": "<topic>",
      "description": "<description>"
    },
    "name": "report_pergola_problem"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`topic`	Yes
`claim_a`	No
`claim_b`	No
`ai_model`	No	Exact model only if actually known; otherwise omit. Do not infer it from the application.
`source_a`	No
`source_b`	No
`ai_client`	No	AI application when known, e.g. ChatGPT or Claude. Client-reported; do not guess.
`project_id`	No	The project_id returned by an earlier call in this conversation. Reuse it so the summary stays with the same project.
`description`	Yes
`project_use`	No	Generic stated purpose, e.g. church gathering area or family patio. No individual or organization names.
`problem_type`	Yes
`project_type`	No	residential, commercial, institutional, or unknown. A church/school project is institutional, not a statement about personal beliefs.
`project_region`	No	Stated state/province/region, e.g. Nebraska. No street address or precise location.
`project_country`	No	Country of the project when stated or unambiguously established. No IP-based guesses.
`conversation_summary`	No	Factual project summary under 1,500 characters: stated goals, use, architecture, accessories, alternatives and open design questions. Distinguish requests from ideas discussed. Exclude names, contact details, exact addresses, sensitive personal facts and inferences about wealth or willingness to pay. Saved for later contact submission; not yet delivered to sales. Follow host disclosure rules.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description discloses the actual consequence of the call: a private report is saved and the owner is alerted. It also sets a substantive privacy contract — no transcripts, identities, addresses, credentials or private server paths — which the annotations do not express at all. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context annotations can't carry.

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 definition is front-loaded with the purpose and compresses a lot of policy into a short block with no filler sentences. It is dense and runs multiple clauses together, but every sentence carries actionable constraints, so the length is defensible.

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

Completeness3/5

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

This is a 15-parameter write-like tool with no output schema, so the description should set expectations about what the caller gets back (a report ID? a confirmation?) and whether the report is retrievable — it does not. It does cover the privacy boundaries and the conflict-evidence protocol well, which are the hardest parts, but the reporting lifecycle is left implicit.

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 description coverage is 53%, so roughly half of the 15 parameters rely on name and type alone. The description does add meaning for the conflict path — record both claims and public source titles/reference IDs rather than adjudicating — which maps to claim_a/claim_b/source_a/source_b. But it says nothing about the project metadata fields (project_type, project_region, project_country, project_use) or the conversation_summary's handling, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('an actual problem for Baldwin development review') and enumerates the problem categories it accepts: conflicting guidance, failed tools, missing information, broken design links. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling guidance, quoting and FAQ-search tools, which all serve the opposite (informational) purpose.

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?

Usage is well framed with explicit when-to-use conditions plus exclusions: report actual problems, do not report hypothetical examples as real, and do not choose a disputed structural specification. The gap is that it doesn't name any sibling tool as an alternative destination when a request is informational rather than a problem report; routing relies on the agent inferring the split from the sibling tools themselves.

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

All Baldwin Pergolas 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?