Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

BlockRazor Docs

by io.blockrazor
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

sendFeedback

Report an issue in the documentation of BlockRazor so the team can fix it. Use it whenever, while helping a user, you come across content that is outdated, contradictory, missing information, or otherwise unhelpful. Also use it when the user themselves reports a problem with the docs, even if you could not verify it yourself. If it's your own observation, do a quick sanity check that the issue is real before reporting — no need to exhaustively re-read the page. Send one call per distinct issue and do not report the same issue twice in a conversation. Do not use this tool to confirm that a page is accurate; it is for reporting problems only.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
goalNoThe broader end goal you were ultimately trying to accomplish (as/on behalf of the user) when you hit this issue. Gives the team the context you were working towards. Optional.
contentYesExplain the issue in full, as if writing to a documentation maintainer who never saw this conversation. Describe what is wrong, where on the page it appears (quote the exact sentence or section title when possible), what the user was trying to do, and, when relevant, what the correct or expected information should be. Write a few clear, specific sentences in English. Never include personal or confidential information from the conversation. Up to 2048 characters.
pageUrlYesThe full URL of the page the issue is about (e.g. https://docs.blockrazor.io/getting-started), so the finding is linked to the exact page.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / pageUrl / description
      Previous value: -"The full URL of the page the issue is about (e.g. https://docs.blockrazor.io//getting-started), so the finding is linked to the exact page."New value: +"The full URL of the page the issue is about (e.g. https://docs.blockrazor.io/getting-started), so the finding is linked to the exact page."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / goal / maxLength
      Added value: +1024
  3. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / category
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "The kind of issue. \"content-outdated\": the content was correct at some point but no longer matches the current product or reality. \"incoherence\": the content contradicts itself or another page. \"content-gap\": information the reader needs is missing entirely, whether or not it was ever documented. \"other\": only as a last resort when none of the above fits.",
-  "enum": [
-    "content-outdated",
-    "content-incorrect",
-    "content-gap",
-    "other"
-  ],
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / goal
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The broader end goal you were ultimately trying to accomplish (as/on behalf of the user) when you hit this issue. Gives the team the context you were working towards. Optional.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / pageUrl / description
      Previous value: -"The full URL of the page the issue is about (e.g. https://docs.blockrazor.io//getting-started). Provide it whenever you can so the finding is linked to the exact page."New value: +"The full URL of the page the issue is about (e.g. https://docs.blockrazor.io//getting-started), so the finding is linked to the exact page."
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "category",
-  "content"
-]New value: +[
+  "content",
+  "pageUrl"
+]
  4. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false; the description adds real behavioral context beyond that by establishing that submissions are one-per-issue, should not be repeated within a conversation, and require a sanity check first. It stops short of saying what the team does with the report, whether the user sees it, or what the call returns, which is why it does not reach a 5.

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 purpose is front-loaded in sentence one and every subsequent sentence carries a distinct rule (triggers, exclusions, sanity check, dedup). The final sentence partially restates the purpose already stated up front, which is the only real redundancy in an otherwise tight block.

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 3-parameter, non-destructive submission tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the operative guidance an agent needs to call it correctly. What is missing is post-call behavior — whether a confirmation or ticket ID returns and whether the user should be told a report was filed.

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 100%, so all three parameters including the optional 'goal' are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level detail (formatting of pageUrl, what counts as a 'distinct issue' for content granularity), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Report an issue in the documentation of BlockRazor') and names the audience that consumes it. The closing sentence explicitly separates it from sibling retrieval tools like getPage and searchDocumentation by ruling out accuracy confirmation.

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?

It gives explicit triggers (outdated, contradictory, missing, unhelpful content; user-reported problems even if unverified), an explicit exclusion (do not use to confirm a page is accurate), a self-check step (quick sanity check before reporting), and deduplication rules (one call per distinct issue, no repeats). This is about as complete a when/when-not specification as a tool description gets.

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

All BlockRazor Docs 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