KnownFix

Request a missing fix

request_fix

Ask for a fix this store does not have yet. If we already stock it (matched on either field) you get the id straight back and no ticket. Otherwise you get a ticket; when we stock THAT fix, check_request returns it to you FREE, once. A ticket only ever redeems a fix created after the request: fixes that already existed when you asked are not free, whatever the request said. No contact details are collected. Set publish: true ONLY if the text may appear on a public wanted board — never include secrets, tokens, internal hostnames, or file paths.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`context`	No	What you already tried, and the tool/runtime versions
`publish`	No	Allow this text on the public board (default false)
`signature`	Yes	The exact error text you are stuck on

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No	Required next step and ticket handling guidance.
`error`	No	Machine-readable validation or quota failure.
`fixId`	No	Existing catalog id when no ticket was needed.
`match`	No	Existing-fix match score.
`detail`	No	Human-readable failure detail.
`status`	No
`ticket`	No
`published`	No
`requestId`	No

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations are all false, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so richly. It discloses non-retroactivity of tickets, one free redemption via check_request, no collection of contact details, and important publish-safety constraints about secrets, tokens, internal hostnames, and file paths.

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 description is front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds only necessary behavioral rules: already-stocked handling, ticket redemption, non-retroactivity, privacy, and publish safety. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

The description covers the complete request lifecycle, redemption policy, privacy, and publish safety. Since an output schema exists, return-value details do not need to be described, and there are no obvious gaps an agent would need to safely invoke this tool.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds significant semantics for publish, explaining that it controls public wanted-board visibility and warning against sensitive content, which the schema does not provide. Context and signature semantics are adequately left to the schema descriptions.

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?

Clearly states 'Ask for a fix this store does not have yet' — a specific verb plus resource. It also distinguishes itself from related tools by describing the two outcomes (already stocked returns an id with no ticket; otherwise a ticket is created), which separates it from check_request, get_fix, and submit_fix.

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 gives clear usage context: use this tool when requesting a fix the store lacks, and it explains the already-stocked shortcut. It also names check_request as the later redemption path. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as submit_fix or search_fixes, or state when not to use the tool.

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

All KnownFix tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target clearly distinct resources or actions, and cross-references like 'use get_fix instead' sharply reduce confusion. A minor source of ambiguity is the cluster of redemption/offer tools (get_fix, get_skill, get_offer) and the three status-check tools, but their descriptions disambiguate them well.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent lowercase snake_case verb_noun pattern: audit_, check_, get_, list_, order_, request_, search_, submit_. The naming style is uniform and predictable across different domains.

Tool Count4/5

At 17 tools, the surface is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range but remains justified given the server's broad scope: catalog browsing, paid redemption, audits, services, requests, submissions, and checkout support. It is dense but not bloated.

Completeness4/5

The lifecycle coverage is strong: discover, get, request, submit, check status, order, pay, and redeem are all represented. Minor gaps exist, such as no cancellation/refund path, no way to update a submitted fix, and merch ordering delegated entirely to an external storefront.

Request a missing fix

Input Schema

Output Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources