Dynamoi

Contact Dynamoi Support

dynamoi_contact_support

Destructive

Use this when the user wants to report a problem with Dynamoi (a tool error, sign-in or permission problem, wrong data, a billing, campaign or distribution question) or send Dynamoi feedback. Show the user the subject and message and get their OK before sending. Dynamoi attaches the signed-in account and this agent's identity, and support replies by email to the account address. Never include passwords, tokens, API keys or card numbers. Sending changes no campaign, billing or account data.

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": {
      "category": "<category>",
      "message": "<message>",
      "subject": "<subject>"
    },
    "name": "dynamoi_contact_support"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`message`	Yes
`subject`	Yes
`category`	Yes
`requestId`	No	Reuse this ID when retrying the same request; use a new ID for a new request.
`failedTool`	No
`errorMessage`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`code`	No
`data`	No
`kind`	No
`field`	No
`status`	Yes
`draftId`	No
`message`	No
`retryable`	No
`nextAction`	No
`failureStage`	No
`prerequisite`	No
`screeningResult`	No
`retryAfterSeconds`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 4, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / requestId

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Reuse this ID when retrying the same request; use a new ID for a new request.",
+  "format": "uuid",
+  "pattern": "^([0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[1-8][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[89abAB][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12}|00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000|ffffffff-ffff-ffff-ffff-ffffffffffff)$",
+  "type": "string"
+}

AddedNov 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations the description discloses real behavior: the signed-in account and agent identity are attached automatically, support replies by email to the account address, and confirmation must be obtained first. It also states the blast radius ('Sending changes no campaign, billing or account data'), which is a narrow-domain clarification rather than a contradiction of destructiveHint=true, since the external send is still irreversible. It doesn't cover rate limits, failure handling, or what happens if the send fails.

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 when-to-use clause is front-loaded, then confirmation, then side effects/identity, then the secrets guardrail, then the non-mutation note. Five short sentences with no filler; nothing restates the annotations or the schema.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers the important unknowns for an outbound-send tool: identity attachment, reply channel, pre-send confirmation, sensitive-data prohibition, and data-side-effect scope. The gap is parameter guidance for failedTool/errorMessage and any notion of what a successful submission looks like beyond the output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 17%, so the description carries most of the burden, yet it never explains the parameters. The listed problem types loosely mirror the category enum, but failedTool and errorMessage, the fields that actually make a tool_error report actionable, go entirely unmentioned. An agent would not learn from the description that it should pass the failing tool name and its error text.

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 names a specific verb-and-resource pair: report a problem with Dynamoi or send feedback, and it enumerates the problem classes (tool error, sign-in/permission, wrong data, billing, campaign, distribution). No sibling tool in the list handles support or feedback, and the description makes that boundary obvious without opening a schema.

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 trigger is stated explicitly ('Use this when the user wants to report a problem ... or send Dynamoi feedback') and a required workflow step is spelled out: show the user the subject and message and get their OK before sending. What's missing is a when-not statement, e.g. for routine data questions that the read-only siblings already answer, but no alternative tool competes for this job.

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

All Dynamoi 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.