Skip to main content
Glama

mu

by com.wearmu

Report a bug or suggest an improvement to MU

mu_submit_feedback

Found a bug, or have an idea to make MU better? File it here. Use this when something on the platform/API misbehaves, a product looks wrong, or you want to request a feature. It lands in the MA-council triage queue. Requires Authorization: Bearer <api_key>.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
skuNoOptional: the SKU this feedback is about.
titleYesShort one-line summary (<=200 chars).
categoryYesbug = something is broken; feature = new capability; improvement = make existing better.
severityNoOptional (bugs): how bad is it?
descriptionYesWhat happened / what you want. Steps to reproduce for bugs. (<=2000 chars)

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It mentions the feedback lands in a triage queue and requires authorization. However, it does not detail other behavioral aspects like whether the operation is idempotent, if confirmation is given, or rate limits. For a feedback tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 with no redundancy. It front-loads the invitation to submit, lists use cases, and ends with destination and authentication requirement. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 simple feedback tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers use cases, destination, and auth. It could mention that it's a write operation or confirm that a feedback is created, but it is largely complete.

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 the schema already describes each parameter. The description reiterates some uses (e.g., 'title' as short summary) but adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema definitions.

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 clearly states the tool is for filing bugs, suggesting improvements, or requesting features. It specifies usage scenarios like platform/API misbehavior or product issues, and there are no sibling tools with overlapping purpose.

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?

The description explicitly tells when to use the tool (bug, improvement, feature request) and where the feedback lands (MA-council triage queue). It does not provide explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the context is sufficient given the lack of similar tools.

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

All mu 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose; no two tools appear to do the same thing. Even closely related tools (e.g., mu_quote vs mu_rfq_create, mu_preview_mockup vs mu_create_product) are differentiated by read-only vs. action, or draft vs. send.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names consistently use snake_case with the mu_ prefix, and follow a clear verb_noun or noun_verb pattern. Groups like mu_gi_*, mu_ship_*, mu_rfq_* maintain internal consistency. No arbitrary or ambiguous names.

Tool Count4/5

The tool count of 28 is on the higher side but appropriate for the breadth of functionality (registration, product lifecycle, manufacturing, shipping, sales, admin). It's well within a manageable range for a comprehensive server.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers core workflows comprehensively: registration, product CRUD (with create, update, retire), manufacturing quotes (informational and RFQ with spec drafting), shipping (CSV, tracking, status updates), sales data, and gi-specific management. Minor gaps include lack of store update/delete and product search, but these are not critical for the main use cases.

Resources