Pizza Developer

Report a problem

report_problem

Report a problem with Pizza Developer itself (the app, not a project tracked inside it) on behalf of the signed-in vibe coder. Never send one on your own initiative: first show the vibe coder the exact message and path, and call only after they explicitly confirm that report, passing userConfirmed: true. A report cannot be read back, edited, or withdrawn once sent. Pass path when it is about a particular page (/projects/{id}), and say plainly in message what went wrong and what was expected. Docs: https://pizzadeveloper.com/docs/report-a-problem

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": {
      "message": "<message>",
      "userConfirmed": "<userConfirmed>"
    },
    "name": "report_problem"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`path`	No	App path the report is about.
`message`	Yes	The problem, exactly as shown to the vibe coder.
`userConfirmed`	Yes	True only after the vibe coder approved this exact report.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Adds traits the annotations do not convey: 'A report cannot be read back, edited, or withdrawn once sent' discloses irreversibility, and 'on behalf of the signed-in vibe coder' discloses the auth/identity context. The mandatory human-confirmation gate is behavioral context well beyond readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false.

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 scope and the negative constraint, then the confirmation protocol, then path/message guidance, then docs. Every sentence earns its place; slightly long, but no filler or repetition of the schema.

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 write tool with no output schema and three fully documented parameters, the description covers everything an agent needs: scope, consent protocol, irreversibility, path semantics, message expectations, and a docs link. Nothing required to call it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds meaning over the schema: when to supply path ('when it is about a particular page (/projects/{id})') and how to phrase message ('say plainly what went wrong and what was expected'), plus the sequencing rule that userConfirmed must reflect approval of that exact report.

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+resource ('Report a problem with Pizza Developer itself') and immediately carves out the boundary that distinguishes it: the app, not a project tracked inside it. An agent can tell this apart from report_workflow_step and the project-scoped tools without opening any schema.

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/when-not: 'Never send one on your own initiative', requires showing the vibe coder the exact message and path first, and gating the call on explicit confirmation via userConfirmed: true. It also names the condition for using path (a particular page like /projects/{id}), leaving nothing to inference.

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

All Pizza Developer 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?