Taseli

Pass an idea to the Taseli team

record_idea

Sends the Taseli team a note about something the owner asked for that Taseli can't do yet (a change with no tool, a missing report, a platform feature), or an improvement the conversation showed. It changes nothing in the account.

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": {
      "idea": "<idea>",
      "kind": "<kind>"
    },
    "name": "record_idea"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`idea`	Yes	In one or two English sentences: what was wanted, in concrete terms (platform, setting, what for).
`kind`	Yes	missing_capability: Taseli can't do what was asked. improvement: it can, but it should be easier or better.
`quote`	No	The owner's own words, when they asked for it.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No	A plain note instead of data (nothing connected yet, not available here).
`text`	No	The answer in plain words.
`truncated`	No
`truncatedNote`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 3, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description adds useful nuance beyond the annotations: it explains why readOnlyHint is false (an outbound note to the team) while still asserting no account state is changed. It does not disclose that calls are not idempotent, so repeated submissions may create duplicate notes - a meaningful gap for a filing tool.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the triggering condition front-loaded and the side-effect disclaimer placed at the end where it is most useful.

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?

With annotations present and an output schema covering returns, the description supplies the missing pieces: what qualifies as an idea, the two categories, and the no-account-impact guarantee. Only duplicate-submission behavior and any downstream visibility of the note are left unaddressed.

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% and the enum descriptions already define missing_capability vs improvement, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description reinforces the distinction contextually but adds no format or content guidance beyond it.

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 (sends the Taseli team a note) plus the exact two triggering situations (a capability Taseli lacks, or an improvement the conversation revealed). The closing clause 'It changes nothing in the account' separates it from write-oriented siblings such as propose_change or test_idea.

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 clear when-to-use conditions: a request Taseli cannot fulfill (no tool, missing report, platform feature) or an improvement surfaced in conversation. It does not explicitly name alternatives like test_idea or propose_change, so an agent must infer that this is the escalation path rather than the change path.

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

All Taseli 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?