Sergio by Serviche

Report a bug or idea to the Sergio team

report_feedback

Files a bug report or feature request with the Sergio team. It lands in the team's one Feedback inbox, the same place the in-app help bubble's reports go, tagged with this agent seat, and the team is notified the moment it is filed. There is no other feedback channel to try. Check with your user first unless they have already told you that you may report without asking; afterwards, tell your user in one line what you sent. Never include passwords, API keys, or card numbers.

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": {
      "kind": "<kind>",
      "description": "<description>"
    },
    "name": "report_feedback"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`kind`	Yes
`pageUrl`	No
`description`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only tell the agent this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write. The description adds what the annotations cannot: the report lands in the team's single Feedback inbox shared with the in-app help bubble, is tagged with the agent's seat, and triggers immediate team notification. It also adds a safety constraint (never include passwords, API keys, or card numbers) that is not implied by any annotation.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and where the report goes, followed by the permission check and the privacy warning. Dense but not padded; the only borderline sentence is the editorial line about there being no other channel, which still earns its place as routing guidance.

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?

With no output schema, the description does not say what the agent gets back on success or failure (confirmation, reference ID, error behavior on a maxLength violation), and it leaves pageUrl unexplained. It is complete on intent, destination, consent, and privacy, but incomplete on inputs and on what a return value looks like.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it only partially does: "bug report or feature request" loosely maps to the kind enum, which the schema already enumerates. The pageUrl parameter is never mentioned or explained, leaving a third of the inputs undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

"Files a bug report or feature request with the Sergio team" names a specific verb (files), specific resources (bug report / feature request), and a specific recipient. No sibling tool in the list covers feedback reporting, and the description makes that unique role obvious.

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?

It states there is no alternative channel ("There is no other feedback channel to try"), removing any search for a competing tool, and it gives a concrete precondition: confirm with the user first unless they have already authorized reporting. It also specifies a post-action step (tell the user in one line what was sent).

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?