Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Tokenrip

by com.tokenrip
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Send feedback to Tokenrip

feedback_send
Destructive

Send a note to the Tokenrip team about Tokenrip itself: a problem, something confusing or missing, or an idea. Use when the person asks to send Tokenrip feedback. The note is emailed to the team with the person's email as the reply address, so the team may answer them by email. Up to 5,000 characters; at most 20 notes a day per person (RATE_LIMITED).

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": {
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "feedback_send"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
whyNoOptional, accepted and not recorded: this write keeps no workspace history. If you send one, one sentence on what the person is trying to accomplish. At most 300 characters.
textYesThe note for the Tokenrip team: a problem, something confusing or missing, or an idea. At most 5000 characters.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint, destructiveHint, and non-idempotent, so the irreversible outbound nature is flagged. The description adds real value beyond them: the note is emailed to the team with the person's email as the reply address, plus a 5,000-character cap and a 20-notes-per-day rate limit. It stops short of explaining consequences of a mis-send, but covers the key delivery and quota behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded paragraph that leads with purpose, then usage trigger, then delivery and quota constraints. Mostly efficient, with slight redundancy in repeating the 5,000-character cap that also lives in the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. The description supplies the delivery mechanism, reply-to behavior, character limit, and rate limit, which is everything an agent needs to call and explain this tool correctly.

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%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema, including the unusual 'why' parameter being accepted but not recorded. The description only restates the 5,000-character limit already in the schema and says nothing extra about 'why'. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Send a note to the Tokenrip team about Tokenrip itself') and enumerates the accepted note kinds (problem, confusing/missing thing, idea). No sibling tool covers feedback, and the description makes that scope unmistakable.

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 an explicit trigger: 'Use when the person asks to send Tokenrip feedback.' That is clear context for invocation. It does not name when-not to use it or alternatives, but no comparable sibling exists, so the gap is minor.

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

All Tokenrip 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