Skip to main content
Glama

Request a Tool

feedback_request_tool

Ask ToolRouter to build a tool that does not exist yet. Use this when discover returned nothing useful for what the user needs. Describe the capability in plain terms — do not include personal data, API keys, or secrets. Requests go straight to the team. Limit: 5 per hour.

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": {
      "what": "<what>"
    },
    "name": "feedback_request_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
whyNoWhat the user was trying to accomplish and why existing tools did not fit.
whatYesWhat the tool should do, in one or two sentences (e.g. "Look up UK company filings by company number").
searchedNoThe discover query you tried that came back empty.
agent_contextNoMCP client name and version, if known.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive write, but the description adds crucial behavioral context beyond them: requests go straight to the team, there is a 5-per-hour rate limit, and personal data/API keys/secrets must be omitted.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage trigger, then two brief constraints. Every sentence adds distinct information with no filler.

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 submission tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger, destination, and constraints. Given the rich schema and annotations, nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds guidance for the 'what' parameter ('describe the capability in plain terms') and a data-handling constraint applicable across parameters, lifting it slightly above baseline.

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: 'Ask ToolRouter to build a tool that does not exist yet.' Clearly distinguishes from siblings like discover by framing it as the fallback when discovery fails.

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?

Explicitly names the trigger: 'Use this when discover returned nothing useful for what the user needs.' Names the alternative (discover) and the condition that selects this tool, leaving no inference needed.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.