Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Upfling.host

by host.upfling.mcp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

report_missing_feature

Read-onlyIdempotent

Report a feature that none of Upfling's tools provide, so Upfling's developers can consider adding it. Use it when no listed tool fits the user's request. It records a one-sentence summary and does not change any site or account.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
detailsNoOptional longer context: what you tried, exact parameter values, the error text you saw, and any workaround you used. Omit when the summary says it all.
summaryYesOne self-contained sentence. For 'missing_capability': the capability you needed, e.g. 'No tool to delete multiple cohorts in one call.' For 'issue': the tool and the problem, e.g. 'query-trends rejects relative date ranges with an unclear error.'
sentimentNoOptional: how the experience felt overall.
tool_nameNoOptional: the existing tool this feedback is about (for 'issue' or 'praise'). Leave empty for 'missing_capability' - the point is that no tool fits.
feedback_typeYesWhat kind of feedback this is. Use 'missing_capability' when the tool you needed does not exist in the tool list - nothing failed, the capability is absent (this is the most valuable report; send it even if you found a workaround). Use 'issue' when an existing tool behaved badly: it failed, returned a confusing error, or its description or schema misled you. Use 'praise' when something worked notably well. Use 'other' for anything else.
task_completedNoOptional: whether you still completed the user's task despite the problem.
friction_pointsNoOptional: the specific moments that slowed you down, as short bullet-like sentences, quoting exact tool names, parameters, or error text.
suggested_improvementNoOptional: the concrete change that would have helped, e.g. the tool to add, the description to reword, or the error message to improve.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds that the call records a one-sentence summary and 'does not change any site or account,' which reinforces the non-mutating effect; it does not mention anything about rate limits or where the report goes beyond 'developers can consider it.'

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-loaded with the purpose, then the trigger condition, then the side-effect disclosure. No filler or restatement of the title.

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, non-destructive feedback tool with a fully described 8-parameter schema and no output schema, the description is close to complete: what it does, when to call it, and what it will not touch. Only minor gaps (fate/visibility of the report, avoiding duplicate submissions) keep it from a 5.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description usefully reinforces the one-sentence constraint on summary that the schema also states. It does not explain the details/friction_points distinction, but those are already documented in 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?

States a specific verb (report) plus its object (a feature none of Upfling's tools provide) and the audience (Upfling's developers). An agent can immediately separate this from the sibling site/file tools, which all operate on sites rather than on the toolset itself.

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 activation condition: 'Use it when no listed tool fits the user's request.' That is a clear routing rule, though it does not spell out the converse (e.g. prefer an existing tool when one fits) or discourage duplicate reports.

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

All Upfling.host 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