cdk-mcp

submit_review

CDK Bot: rate a completed purchase (1-5 stars). Helps improve the service. One review per order. Requires order_id and the wallet_address used for payment.

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": {
      "order_id": "<order_id>",
      "wallet_address": "<wallet_address>",
      "rating": "<rating>"
    },
    "name": "submit_review"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`rating`	Yes	Rating from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent)
`comment`	No	Optional comment about the purchase experience
`order_id`	Yes	Order ID to review
`agent_name`	No	Your agent/client name (e.g. "Claude Desktop", "Cursor")
`wallet_address`	Yes	Buyer wallet address (must match the order)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedMay 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. Mentions 'one review per order' (idempotency hint) and required matching, but does not specify error behavior on duplicate or whether ratings can be updated.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. Purpose and requirements clearly stated, though could be slightly more structured with bullet points for key constraints.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given 5 parameters and no output schema, description adequately explains key constraints and required fields. Lacks hint about return values (e.g., success confirmation), but otherwise complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. Description reinforces the required pairing of order_id and wallet_address, but adds minimal new meaning beyond 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?

Description clearly states the verb ('rate a completed purchase'), the resource (completed purchase), and constraints (1-5 stars, one per order). Distinguishes well from sibling tools like request_refund or check_order.

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?

Provides clear prerequisites: order_id and wallet_address must match. Implicitly advises one review per order, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives like checking if already reviewed.

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

All cdk-mcp tools Inspect

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

Need Help?