Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Amendor

by io.github.deslay1
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Attach preview URL

set_preview_url
Idempotent

Attach a deploy-preview URL to a change request and mark it ready for the requester to review.

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "set_preview_url"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesTicket code like "RB-3" (raw ids also work).
urlYesDeploy-preview URL (from your host) that the requester will review.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeYesShort ticket code.
statusYesNew status, set to "preview".
review_urlYesPage where the requester reviews and approves the change.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / id / description
      Previous value: -"Change request id."New value: +"Ticket code like \"RB-3\" (raw ids also work)."
    • addedOutput schema / properties / code
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Short ticket code.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedOutput schema / properties / id
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Change request id.",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • changedOutput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "id",
-  "status",
-  "review_url"
-]New value: +[
+  "code",
+  "status",
+  "review_url"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds a behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it marks the request ready for review. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description's added effect of changing readiness is useful context without contradiction.

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 a single sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the core action and effect, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

For a simple two-parameter mutation with an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description is complete enough. It covers the essential action and effect; the lack of overwrite behavior is acceptable given the idempotent hint.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema with 100% coverage, so the description adds little additional meaning. The url parameter description in the schema already mentions 'from your host' and the requester review context, matching the tool description. Baseline of 3 applies when schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description clearly states the action: attach a deploy-preview URL to a change request and mark it ready for review. It uses a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from sibling read tools (get_change_request, list_change_requests) and update_status by specifying the URL attachment and review-ready effect.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description gives clear context for use (attaching a preview URL) but does not explicitly contrast with update_status, which could also be used to change review readiness. No when-not-to-use exclusions are provided, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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

All Amendor 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