Skip to main content
Glama

Tell Gluo what you needed but couldn't get

request_service

If a task needs a service, API or action Gluo doesn't offer, describe it in a sentence or two. This is how Gluo decides what to build next. Include roughly what you'd expect it to cost if you know.

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": {
      "need": "<need>"
    },
    "name": "request_service"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
needYesWhat you needed, in plain words
taskNoThe task you were doing when you needed it
wouldPayUsdPerCallNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that this feeds Gluo’s build roadmap and that cost is optional, but it does not explain whether the request is merely recorded, whether any confirmation or request ID is returned, or what happens after submission.

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?

Three short sentences front-load the core condition, then explain the purpose and optional cost guidance. There is no filler or repetition.

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 three-parameter feature-request tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the important intent, trigger condition, and optional cost input. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning what the user receives after submitting, but the core is sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is moderate at 67%. The description adds meaningful meaning by explaining that the core need should be a sentence or two and that including an expected cost is optional, which directly clarifies the need and wouldPayUsdPerCall parameters beyond the 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?

It clearly states the tool captures a needed service, API, or action that Gluo does not offer, which is a specific and distinguishable purpose. The title and description make it easy to separate from sibling tools like call_api, list_services, and request_budget.

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 gives a clear triggering condition: use this when a task needs a service, API, or action Gluo doesn’t offer. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or when-not cases, but the condition is strong enough to route correctly in most cases.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources