Volanea

volanea_report_missing_tool

Read-only

Report that this server lacks a tool you needed, so the gap gets closed instead of silently worked around. Call it at the moment you fall back to a raw REST call, tell the user to do something by hand in the dashboard, or abandon an approach because no tool covered it — those are the three signals that matter, and none of them is visible to anyone unless you say so. IMPORTANT: this records feedback and changes NOTHING about the project; it does not create the missing capability, retry your last call, or unblock you. After calling it, carry on with the REST API — volanea_get_api_reference has the endpoint you need. Costs one call and is always safe: it is write-free and reads no project data.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`context`	No	What you were building and what you did instead. The workaround is the useful half: it shows which REST endpoint the tool should have wrapped, and how awkward the detour was.
`capability`	Yes	The missing capability in one line, phrased as the operation you wanted — e.g. "check whether an address is suppressed" or "list scheduled sends". Not the symptom, and not the workaround you settled on.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`code`	No	Machine-readable failure code to branch on. Present only when success is false.
`data`	No	Present when success is true.
`error`	No	Human-readable failure reason. Present only when success is false.
`success`	Yes	False when the call failed; read `error` and `code` in that case.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description goes much further: it records feedback without creating the capability, does not retry or unblock, is write-free, reads no project data, and costs one call. This is exactly the extra behavioral context annotations cannot convey.

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?

The trigger conditions come first, the crucial 'changes NOTHING' caveat is bolded and front-loaded, and the follow-up routing closes it out. Length is justified by the amount of decision-relevant information.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description fully covers when to call, what it does and does not do, and how to proceed afterward. Nothing an agent needs to invoke 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 defines both parameters, including how to phrase 'capability' as an operation and what 'context' should capture. The description body adds no parameter detail beyond that, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb (report) and resource (a missing tool/capability gap) and frames it as meta-feedback rather than a project action, clearly separating it from every sibling that actually performs work. An agent can tell immediately this is not a capability it can use to accomplish the task.

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?

Gives three explicit trigger conditions — falling back to a raw REST call, telling the user to do something by hand, or abandoning an approach — and states the tool changes nothing and that the agent should continue via volanea_get_api_reference afterward. When-to-use and what-happens-next are both spelled out.

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

All Volanea tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.