Skip to main content
Glama

squirrelscan

by com.squirrelscan

Send feedback

send_feedback

Report your experience using squirrelscan mid-session: a bug, a missing feature, what worked, what confused you, missing report data, or tool ergonomics. Reviewed by the team to improve the product — use it any time something surprises you, not just at the end of a session. Works with any authenticated credentials, including read-only API keys.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
run_idNoAudit run id this feedback relates to, if any (from run_audit/get_report). Verified against your credentials' runs before being attached.
messageYesFree-text feedback (truncated at 2000 chars).
categoryYesbug_report (a defect in squirrelscan itself — wrong or missing rule result, crash, broken tool), feature_request (something squirrelscan should do but doesn't), what_worked (something worked well), confusing (unclear response/behavior), missing_data (a report or tool response was missing something you needed), tool_ergonomics (awkward tool shape/args/naming), or other.
website_idNoWebsite id this feedback relates to, if any (from list_websites). Verified against your org's websites before being attached.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations show readOnlyHint=false (write) and destructiveHint=false (non-destructive). Description confirms it is for feedback submission, reviewed by team, and works with any credentials. No contradictions or missing behavioral details.

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 description is three sentences long, front-loaded with action and purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 feedback submission tool with no output schema, the description fully explains its purpose, usage timing, and compatibility. All parameters are well-documented in the schema. No gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description itself does not repeat parameter details but provides overall context. No additional semantic value beyond the schema is added by the description text.

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?

The description uses specific verbs ('report your experience') and resource ('squirrelscan mid-session'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools (no other feedback tool exists).

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('any time something surprises you, not just at the end of a session'). Does not explicitly mention when not to use, but alternatives are not needed since no feedback sibling exists.

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

All squirrelscan toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool maps to a distinct resource-action pair: websites, audits, issues, rules, credits, notifications, and account info are cleanly separated. Even the close pairs (delete_website vs delete_websites, get_rule vs list_rules) are clear singular/bulk or fetch-all vs fetch-one distinctions.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: add_, delete_, get_, list_, run_, comment_, send_, create_. The only outlier, whoami, is a conventional standalone command and does not break the overall predictability.

Tool Count4/5

At 20 tools, the surface is slightly heavy, but the count is justified by the wide domain coverage: audit lifecycle, issue tracking, rule catalog, billing/credits, notifications, and account management. Each tool appears to earn its place, and none feel redundant.

Completeness4/5

The core workflow is well covered: run an audit, poll it, fetch a report, compare audits, list and comment on issues, browse rules, and manage websites. Minor gaps exist—no cancel-audit tool, no update_website, and issues cannot be status-changed—but agents can work around these using the existing tools.

Resources