Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

MariaDB Documentation

by com.mariadb
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

sendFeedback

Report an issue in the documentation of MariaDB Documentation so the team can fix it. Use it whenever, while helping a user, you come across content that is outdated, contradictory, missing information, or otherwise unhelpful. Also use it when the user themselves reports a problem with the docs, even if you could not verify it yourself. If it's your own observation, do a quick sanity check that the issue is real before reporting — no need to exhaustively re-read the page. Send one call per distinct issue and do not report the same issue twice in a conversation. Do not use this tool to confirm that a page is accurate; it is for reporting problems only.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
goalNoThe broader end goal you were ultimately trying to accomplish (as/on behalf of the user) when you hit this issue. Gives the team the context you were working towards. Optional.
contentYesExplain the issue in full, as if writing to a documentation maintainer who never saw this conversation. Describe what is wrong, where on the page it appears (quote the exact sentence or section title when possible), what the user was trying to do, and, when relevant, what the correct or expected information should be. Write a few clear, specific sentences in English. Never include personal or confidential information from the conversation. Up to 2048 characters.
pageUrlYesThe full URL of the page the issue is about (e.g. https://mariadb.com/docs/getting-started), so the finding is linked to the exact page.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / pageUrl / description
      Previous value: -"The full URL of the page the issue is about (e.g. https://mariadb.com/docs//getting-started), so the finding is linked to the exact page."New value: +"The full URL of the page the issue is about (e.g. https://mariadb.com/docs/getting-started), so the finding is linked to the exact page."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond them: one call per distinct issue, no duplicate reports per conversation, sanitize personal info implied by schema, and self-verify before filing. It does not say what happens after submission (acknowledgement, ticket creation) or that the call is a one-way external side effect.

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, then usage triggers, then constraints — a sensible order with no filler. It runs long (six sentences) and the verification/dedup rules could be tightened, but every sentence still informs a decision.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description never mentions what the tool returns or whether the report is acknowledged, which is the main remaining gap for a write-style external call. Everything needed to decide whether and how to call it is present.

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% and the schema descriptions already explain goal, content (with what to include and quoting), and pageUrl. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Report an issue in the documentation of MariaDB Documentation') and the downstream effect ('so the team can fix it'). Easily distinguished from siblings getPage (read) and searchDocumentation (search) since this is the only submission/write path.

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?

Explicit when-to-use triggers (outdated, contradictory, missing, unhelpful content; user-reported problems), an explicit when-not ('Do not use this tool to confirm that a page is accurate'), plus a verification threshold ('quick sanity check… no need to exhaustively re-read') and a dedup rule. This is about as complete as routing guidance gets.

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

All MariaDB Documentation 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