Sergio by Serviche

Record the business's other tools

record_tools_access

Idempotent

Records the tools the business uses today and whether Serviche was given access to each, as Get started's Your tools step does: action pick (tools: [{ id } or { name }]), none, mark (tool, provided, note) or unmark (tool). Nothing leaves Sergio. Pass the same idempotency_key when retrying. An owner-level change: Sergio tells the owner after it is made.

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": {
      "action": "<action>",
      "idempotency_key": "<idempotency_key>"
    },
    "name": "record_tools_access"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No
`tool`	No
`tools`	No
`action`	Yes
`reason`	No	Why you are doing this, in one sentence. The owner sees it in the notice Sergio sends after the change.
`provided`	No
`idempotency_key`	Yes	Your id for this operation (8-128 of A-Z a-z 0-9 . _ : -). Reuse it on every retry of the same operation; use a new one for a new operation.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 8, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the description still adds real context: 'Nothing leaves Sergio' (data stays local), retry guidance to reuse idempotency_key, and the fact that this is an owner-level change that triggers an owner notice after the write. It does not say whether the recorded list replaces or merges with existing entries, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and every subsequent sentence carries information (action mapping, privacy, retry, notification) with no filler. The action list is compressed into telegraphic fragments that read awkwardly, costing a point on structure rather than length.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description covers the essential behaviors: action semantics, idempotency on retry, data locality, and owner notification. Missing are the return shape and whether recording is additive or replacing, but neither is disqualifying.

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 only 29% (only reason and idempotency_key are documented), so the description must compensate, and it does: it maps each enum value to the parameters it consumes — pick uses tools: [{ id } or { name }], mark uses tool, provided, note, unmark uses tool. That is genuinely beyond the schema, though 'note', 'provided' defaults, and the 'none' action's effect remain under-specified.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The opening states a specific verb and resource: 'Records the tools the business uses today and whether Serviche was given access to each.' That is clearly distinct from sibling tools like update_settings or declare_lead_sources. It falls short of a 5 only because the product-name framing (Serviche, Sergio) and the 'as Get started's Your tools step does' reference add noise rather than sharper scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description situates usage ('as Get started's Your tools step does') and enumerates the four action modes, which implies when each applies. However, it never states when NOT to use this tool, nor does it point to a sibling (e.g. update_settings) for adjacent configuration, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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

All Sergio by Serviche 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?