Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Ichimoku Signal

by io.github.Fizzl13
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Send feedback (free)

feedback

Report a bug, a missing feature or anything else about this service, in a structured way. Free. A person reads every report; nothing is run or changed automatically.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNobug, feature (something missing) or other
contactNoOptional: how to reach you about it
messageYesWhat happened or what you need
endpointNoOptional: the route or tool it is about, e.g. /v1/token

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesReport id, to refer to it later
noteNo
typeNo
serviceNo
receivedYestrue: a person will read it

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • changedOutput schema / additionalProperties
      Previous value: -trueNew value: +{}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "id": {
+      "description": "Report id, to refer to it later",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "note": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "received": {
+      "description": "true: a person will read it",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "service": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "type": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "received",
+    "id"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the service is free, that a human reads every report, and that nothing is automatically run or changed. This adds meaningful behavioral context for a submission tool and is consistent with readOnlyHint=false.

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 tightly written sentences. Purpose, scope, and key behavioral traits are front-loaded with no wasted text.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a low-complexity feedback submission tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations, the description covers what the tool does and how it behaves. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters. The description mentions structured reporting and the bug/feature/other categories but adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides.

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 description states a specific verb ('Report') and resources ('a bug, a missing feature or anything else about this service'), and explicitly frames it as structured feedback. Sibling tools are unrelated market-analysis tools, so no sibling differentiation is needed.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: for bugs, missing features, or other service-related feedback. It does not explicitly name when not to use it or list alternatives, but the 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 Ichimoku Signal 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