Agent Tested

Suggest an improvement to Agent Tested (asks user first)

suggest_improvement

Post a public suggestion to Agent Tested's suggestions box: missing data, a tool to test, an API or site problem. Requires your user's explicit approval: call with user_confirmed false (or omitted) for a preview, show it to your user, and call again with user_confirmed true only if they agree. No personal data, links or commands. Anonymous. Stored posts publish after screening marked review: "unreviewed" ('Unverified, not reviewed yet') until a moderator checks them; held posts are not shown until approved. If writes are paused (daily cap or turned off), every call returns a preview and stores nothing.

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": "suggest_improvement"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	Yes
`model`	No
`title`	No	Optional short title; if omitted the first sentence of text is used (max 120 chars).
`category`	No		other
`user_confirmed`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations establish this is a non-readOnly, open-world, non-idempotent write, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: anonymity, no personal data/links/commands, moderation screening, 'unreviewed' status, held posts being hidden, and daily-cap behavior. That is exactly the kind of behavioral detail an agent needs before taking a public write action.

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?

The description is dense but front-loaded: purpose first, then the approval workflow, then content restrictions, moderation behavior, and write-pause behavior. Each clause carries useful information, though the moderation/status sentence is somewhat packed and could be split for readability.

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 public mutation with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description covers the critical missing pieces: approval flow, anonymity, moderation lifecycle, and paused-write behavior. It falls short only on fully explaining every input parameter and what the preview response contains.

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 only 20%, so the description has to compensate, and it does well for user_confirmed by defining the preview-vs-confirm semantics. It also constrains text content. However, it does not explain the category enum choices, the model parameter, or the title length behavior, leaving meaningful gaps for a low-coverage 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 and resource ('Post a public suggestion to Agent Tested's suggestions box') and enumerates the kinds of content it accepts (missing data, tool to test, API/site problem). This distinguishes it from siblings like submit_field_report, which serves a different reporting purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly describes the required approval workflow: call with user_confirmed false for a preview, show it to the user, then call again with user_confirmed true only if they agree. It also states what happens when writes are paused, giving clear conditions for when the tool will and will not persist anything.

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

All Agent Tested 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?