Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

TestGraph

by io.github.BBCBasic
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Change review visibility

set_review_visibility
Idempotent

Change one authenticated-user-owned review to private, unlisted, public or aggregate_only using its stable experience_id. Use a preceding list_reviews_by_visibility result to translate conversational list numbers back to stable IDs. Setting public also ensures publication_status=published.

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": {
      "experience_id": "<experience_id>",
      "visibility": "<visibility>"
    },
    "name": "set_review_visibility"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
visibilityYes
experience_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / version_check
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Required live deployment token. Call get_server_info immediately before this write and pass write_version_token unchanged. Stale or missing tokens are rejected before any write occurs.",
-  "maxLength": 64,
-  "minLength": 64,
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "experience_id",
-  "visibility",
-  "version_check"
-]New value: +[
+  "experience_id",
+  "visibility"
+]
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context: only authenticated-user-owned reviews can be changed, stable IDs are required, and setting public also forces publication_status=published. It does not explain side effects for the other visibility values, but it goes well beyond the structured annotations.

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 tightly written sentences with no wasted words. The core action comes first, followed by the practical ID-resolution workflow and then the non-obvious publication side effect. Everything present adds value.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation context: the resource scope, the auth constraint, the source of the ID, and a non-obvious side effect. The main gaps are the meanings of unlisted and aggregate_only, and what happens to publication_status when moving away from public, but these are not blocking for correct tool selection.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters itself. It does clarify that experience_id is a stable identifier and explains how to obtain it from list_reviews_by_visibility. It also adds behavior for visibility=public. However, it does not define the semantics of unlisted or aggregate_only beyond listing the enum values.

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 the exact operation ('change review visibility'), the resource ('one authenticated-user-owned review'), and the allowed visibility values. The mention of a stable experience_id helps distinguish this tool from list-oriented review tools and suggests a precise, single-review scope.

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?

Provides a clear prerequisite workflow: use list_reviews_by_visibility first to map conversational list numbers to stable experience_id values. It does not explicitly discuss when to prefer save_experience or other siblings, but the core usage context is unambiguous.

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

All TestGraph 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