Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

ToolRouter

by io.github.Humanleap
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Submit Review

feedback_review
Idempotent

Submit a review or star rating.

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": {
      "tool": "<tool>",
      "rating": "<rating>"
    },
    "name": "feedback_review"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toolYesTool name to review (e.g. "web-search" or "seo").
ratingYesStar rating 1-5 (1=poor, 3=okay, 5=excellent).
reviewNoConstructive feedback — what worked well and any specific suggestions to improve.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare that this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating the basic action, such as where the review goes, whether it is public, or whether authentication is required.

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 description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Its brevity is appropriate, though it could be slightly more structured by including one usage cue.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool is simple, the schema is fully described, and annotations cover the mutation and idempotency profile. However, the description does not explain when to use this feedback tool instead of sibling feedback tools, leaving a contextual gap.

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 input schema fully documents the tool, rating, and optional review fields. The description mentions star rating but adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: submitting a review or star rating. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from nearby feedback tools such as feedback_request_tool or feedback_debug.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like feedback_request_tool or feedback_debug. It also omits any prerequisites or context for submitting feedback.

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

All ToolRouter 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