Marsell

Report a mission sent

mission_done

Reports a mission sent, with the https link to what you sent on the platform: your reply or comment, the conversation, or their profile for a connection request. If the platform showed a warning, a captcha, a rate limit or a restriction while you sent it, say which in saw: Marsell slows down or stops there and tells the owner, and send nothing more on that platform this wake. Then ask missions_next for the next one.

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": {
      "mission_id": "<mission_id>",
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "mission_done"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`saw`	No	What the platform showed, if anything: banner (a warning), captcha, rate_limit or restricted.
`url`	Yes	The https link to what you sent, on the mission's platform.
`note`	No	Anything the owner should know.
`project`	No	The project's id or exact name. Optional when the account has one project.
`session`	No	A short name for this session of yours (letters, digits, dots, dashes, colons or underscores, up to 64), made up once when this wake starts and passed the same to missions_next and every report. A mission is held for the session that took it: another session gets a different one, or hears when to come back, and only the session that took a mission reports it.
`mission_id`	Yes	The mission's id from missions_next (ms- and 16 hex characters).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), the description discloses the important downstream consequence: a banner/captcha/rate_limit/restricted reading causes Marsell to slow down or stop and notify the owner, and the agent must send nothing more on that platform this wake. That is real behavioral context the annotations do not carry. It stops short of saying what the report call itself changes server-side or what it returns.

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-loaded with the purpose and the required link, then the warning branch, then the next step — a sensible order. The sentence about Marsell slowing down is slightly run-on ('...and send nothing more on that platform this wake'), but no sentence is filler.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the workflow, the escalation behavior, and the follow-up call. The remaining gap is what a successful report returns or whether repeated reports for the same mission are idempotent, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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 genuine meaning: it clarifies that 'url' must be the https link to the specific artifact sent, and it explains the consequence of each 'saw' enum value rather than just listing them. This is above-baseline value on the two required parameters, though 'note', 'project', and 'session' are left to the schema.

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 and resource ('Reports a mission sent') plus the payload it carries ('the https link to what you sent on the platform'). It also enumerates the accepted link kinds (reply/comment, conversation, profile for a connection request), so an agent can distinguish this from mission_skipped, mission_stuck, and mission_inbox without opening the schema.

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?

It gives a clear workflow: report after sending, record any platform warning in 'saw', then call missions_next for the next mission. The warning-handling branch effectively tells the agent when to slow down or stop. It does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives (mission_skipped, mission_stuck) for the failure cases, which is the only gap.

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

All Marsell 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.