Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Meetful

by com.meetful
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Submit a fix to Meetful

submit_fix

Opens a pull request against Meetful's source code: a unified diff for a fix request, either an existing one (feedback_id) or a new one described in text. Nothing is applied automatically; a person reviews and merges it.

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": {
      "diff": "<diff>"
    },
    "name": "submit_fix"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyNoWhat changed and why, and how you checked it.
diffYesUnified diff against the source, with diff --git headers.
pageNo
textNoIf there is no feedback_id: what is being fixed, as a person would report it.
testsNo
titleNoOne line, like a commit subject.
feedback_idNoThe fix request this resolves.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
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, so the mutation and external-system profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: nothing is applied automatically and a human reviews and merges the PR — the single most important fact for an agent deciding whether to call this. It omits auth requirements, duplicate-submission behavior, and what is returned, keeping it below 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the review caveat. No filler, no restatement of the title, and the input-shape clause is compressed into a parenthetical.

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?

Seven parameters including a nested tests object and no output schema, so the description should say what a successful call yields (a PR link or identifier) — it does not. It also leaves the nested tests structure and the body/title expectations entirely to the schema. Adequate for understanding the action, incomplete for confirming the outcome.

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?

The description adds real meaning beyond the schema by framing feedback_id and text as mutually exclusive paths. But with 71% schema coverage, it says nothing about body, title, page, or the nested tests object, which are the parameters most likely to be filled in incorrectly. Baseline 3 is appropriate given mid-high schema coverage.

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 specific verb and resource ('Opens a pull request against Meetful's source code') and immediately scopes the input as a unified diff tied either to an existing fix request (feedback_id) or a new described one. An agent can tell this apart from feedback-reporting siblings like send_feedback 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?

Gives a clear context for use and spells out the two entry paths — an existing feedback_id or a new fix described in text — which is real routing guidance. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating when not to submit (e.g. trivial edits, or fixes better filed as feedback), so it does not reach a 5.

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

All Meetful 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