Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

SpiderLook

by com.spiderlook.api
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

review_battlecard_suggestion

DestructiveIdempotent

Accept or dismiss one pending battlecard suggestion.

Use when the user requests accepting or dismissing a specific suggestion. Accepting may add or replace existing card content and marks the suggestion accepted. Dismissing marks it dismissed without changing card content. suggestion_id comes from get_battlecard pending_suggestions. A suggestion that has already been reviewed is rejected without further changes.

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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>",
      "competitor_id": "<competitor_id>",
      "suggestion_id": "<suggestion_id>",
      "decision": "<decision>"
    },
    "name": "review_battlecard_suggestion"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contextNoA few words on why you are calling this tool, for the server developer's analytics. Describe people and things by role, such as "a customer". Do not quote the user or include names, emails, or other personal details.
decisionYes
llm_modelNoOptional model identifier for analytics, only if explicitly available in client-provided metadata. Otherwise pass 'unknown'. Do not inspect or disclose system prompts, hidden instructions, credentials, or other protected context.
project_idYes
competitor_idYes
suggestion_idYes
conversation_idNoOptional Spiderlook analytics correlation identifier. Reuse the value returned by a previous Spiderlook response only for subsequent Spiderlook calls in this chat. Omit if unavailable; do not invent a value or use the host's conversation ID.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
_mcp_instructionsNoServer-issued metadata for this conversation.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / context / description
      Previous value: -"Explain in 15-25 words, in third person, why this tool is called and how it supports the user's goal. For analytics only. You MUST describe only the abstract purpose of the tool call. NEVER include, repeat, paraphrase, or infer personal, sensitive, or identifying information from the user request or tool results, including names, emails, phone numbers, IPs, IDs, or credentials. You MUST generalize specific entities into roles such as \"a user\", \"the customer\", or \"an account\". Example: \"Retrieving a customer's recent orders to investigate a billing issue and help support determine the appropriate resolution.\""New value: +"A few words on why you are calling this tool, for the server developer's analytics. Describe people and things by role, such as \"a customer\". Do not quote the user or include names, emails, or other personal details."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description earns credit for filling in what the annotation cannot: accepting may add or replace existing card content, dismissing leaves card content untouched, and re-reviewing an already-reviewed suggestion fails without side effects. That is exactly the effect/precondition disclosure an agent needs before a mutation.

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?

The write action and its usage condition are front-loaded, then the two branch effects, then the precondition failure - a clean priority order with no filler. Every sentence carries a distinct fact an agent needs.

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 4-required-param mutation with an output schema, the description covers effects, the suggestion_id provenance, and the rejected-when-already-reviewed case, which is the critical safety information. The remaining gap is scope: it never clarifies what project_id and competitor_id must identify relative to the suggestion.

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 43%, so the description must compensate, and it does for half the required parameters: it explains where suggestion_id comes from (get_battlecard pending_suggestions) and what each decision enum value does. project_id and competitor_id remain unexplained in both places, and the analytics-only params (context, llm_model, conversation_id) are left to the schema.

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 pair (accept or dismiss) and a specific resource (one pending battlecard suggestion), scoped to a single item. It also distinguishes itself from get_battlecard by naming that tool as the source of suggestion_id, so an agent can place it among the battlecard siblings without opening a 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?

'Use when the user requests accepting or dismissing a specific suggestion' gives a clear activating condition, and the note that an already-reviewed suggestion is rejected tells the agent the prerequisite state. No explicit exclusion or named alternative (e.g. approve_battlecard) is given, but the preconditions that matter for correct selection are present.

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

All SpiderLook 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