SpiderLook

Report missing Spiderlook capability

report_missing_capability

Record feedback about a Spiderlook capability unavailable in the listed tools when it prevents completing the user's Spiderlook request. Sends feedback to the developers through PostHog; does not discover or enable additional tools.

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": {
      "context": "<context>",
      "llm_model": "<llm_model>"
    },
    "name": "report_missing_capability"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`context`	Yes	A brief description of the missing Spiderlook capability. Do not include names, IDs, personal data, credentials, conversation transcripts, or sensitive request details.
`llm_model`	Yes	Optional 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.
`conversation_id`	No	Optional 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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only say it is non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world; the description adds the key behavioral fact that feedback is transmitted to developers via PostHog, and warns against including personal data. It stops short of saying repeated calls create duplicate submissions (relevant given idempotentHint=false) or mentioning any rate limiting.

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 its trigger, followed by the scope limitation. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant with the title.

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?

Low-complexity feedback tool with fully described parameters and no output schema, and the description covers the trigger, destination, and privacy constraints. Nothing an agent needs to decide and call correctly is missing.

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 100%, with each of the three parameters documented in detail in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Record feedback about a Spiderlook capability') plus the triggering condition (only when it blocks the user's request). It also explicitly excludes adjacent functionality ('does not discover or enable additional tools'), which no sibling tool provides, so an agent can tell it apart from the battlecard/channel/competitor tools.

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 activation condition: the missing capability must prevent completing the user's Spiderlook request, and states the tool will not discover or enable tools. No alternative tool is named, but none of the siblings is a substitute for this action, so the routing guidance is nearly complete.

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

All SpiderLook 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?