Skip to main content
Glama

Atisbo

by io.github.brian8a1
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

atisbo_support

Read-only

Diagnose Atisbo, including "I connected a source and nothing appeared", "I sent text and no opportunity formed", or "my data is missing". Checks integrations, ingestion, clustering, gates and key scope, then returns a playbook. share_report files only diagnostics + your text. Use atisbo_lookup/atisbo_analyze for backlog.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
areaNoNarrows the checks. Omit when unsure — the full set costs the same.
problemYesWhat went wrong, in your words. No customer feedback, docs or credentials — the string IS filed in reports.
share_reportNoFile a verdict-only report when the fault is not caller-side; false = diagnose.
observed_errorNoThe failing error VERBATIM — diagnostics cannot see the failed call; usually the only evidence.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYes
metaYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / area / description
      Previous value: -"Narrows which checks run. Omit when unsure — the full set costs the same round-trip."New value: +"Narrows the checks. Omit when unsure — the full set costs the same."
    • changedInput schema / properties / observed_error / description
      Previous value: -"The failing error string VERBATIM — diagnostics cannot see the failed call, so this is often the only evidence."New value: +"The failing error VERBATIM — diagnostics cannot see the failed call; usually the only evidence."
    • changedInput schema / properties / problem / description
      Previous value: -"What went wrong, in your words. Do NOT paste customer feedback, document bodies or credentials — this string IS filed if a report is created."New value: +"What went wrong, in your words. No customer feedback, docs or credentials — the string IS filed in reports."
    • changedInput schema / properties / share_report / description
      Previous value: -"File a verdict-only report when the problem is not caller-side; false = diagnose only."New value: +"File a verdict-only report when the fault is not caller-side; false = diagnose."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / properties / data / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "outcome",
-  "headline",
-  "explanation",
-  "findings",
-  "next_steps",
-  "known_issue",
-  "report_id",
-  "reported"
-]New value: +[
+  "outcome",
+  "headline",
+  "explanation",
+  "findings",
+  "next_steps",
+  "reported"
+]
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / properties / meta / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "contract_version",
-  "tenant_plan",
-  "workspace_id",
-  "workspace_name",
-  "persona",
-  "scoring_model",
-  "gates_applied",
-  "timestamp"
-]New value: +[
+  "tenant_plan",
+  "workspace_id",
+  "workspace_name",
+  "timestamp"
+]
  4. Changed5 schema fields changed
    • removedOutput schema / properties / meta / properties / contract_version / minLength
      Removed value: -1
    • removedOutput schema / properties / meta / properties / persona / minLength
      Removed value: -1
    • removedOutput schema / properties / meta / properties / scoring_model / minLength
      Removed value: -1
    • removedOutput schema / properties / meta / properties / workspace_id / minLength
      Removed value: -1
    • removedOutput schema / properties / meta / properties / workspace_name / minLength
      Removed value: -1
  5. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds non-obvious behavior: it returns a playbook, and share_report files only diagnostics plus the caller's text. That privacy/scope disclosure is real value beyond the structured fields. It does not, however, describe latency or what the playbook contains, so it is not exhaustive.

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?

Front-loads the verb and purpose, then the symptom examples that drive matching, then the routing constraint, then the privacy caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information; the quoted examples are load-bearing for intent matching rather than 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 4-parameter diagnostic tool with an output schema, full schema coverage, and safety annotations already present, the description supplies the remaining needed context: what it checks, when to invoke it, what it returns, and what data leaves the system. Nothing an agent needs 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.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description lifts this slightly by clarifying share_report's side effect scope ('files only diagnostics + your text') and reinforcing that observed_error is usually the only evidence and the problem string is filed. Much of the parameter context duplicates the schema, so the gain over baseline is modest.

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?

Names a specific verb (Diagnose) and resource (Atisbo), enumerates the exact symptom classes it handles in user phrasing, and lists the subsystems it checks (integrations, ingestion, clustering, gates, key scope). It also names the sibling tools it is not (atisbo_lookup/atisbo_analyze for backlog), so an agent can separate it from the rest of the family without reading schemas.

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?

Gives concrete trigger scenarios ('I connected a source and nothing appeared', 'my data is missing') and routes backlog-style questions to atisbo_lookup/atisbo_analyze. The alternative routing is terse ('for backlog') and no other exclusions or prerequisites are stated, so it stops short of fully explicit when/when-not guidance.

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

All Atisbo toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Pay for results, not tokens.Fund a bounty. Let AI agents compete and collaborate to solve your problems.agentbounties.appAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources