Skip to main content
Glama

SODAX Builders MCP

by io.github.gosodax

docs_sendFeedback

Read-only

[SDK Docs] Report an issue in the documentation of Docs so the team can fix it. Use it whenever, while helping a user, you come across content that is outdated, contradictory, missing information, or otherwise unhelpful. Also use it when the user themselves reports a problem with the docs, even if you could not verify it yourself. If it's your own observation, do a quick sanity check that the issue is real before reporting — no need to exhaustively re-read the page. Send one call per distinct issue and do not report the same issue twice in a conversation. Do not use this tool to confirm that a page is accurate; it is for reporting problems only.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
goalNoThe broader end goal you were ultimately trying to accomplish (as/on behalf of the user) when you hit this issue. Gives the team the context you were working towards. Optional.
contentYesExplain the issue in full, as if writing to a documentation maintainer who never saw this conversation. Describe what is wrong, where on the page it appears (quote the exact sentence or section title when possible), what the user was trying to do, and, when relevant, what the correct or expected information should be. Write a few clear, specific sentences in English. Never include personal or confidential information from the conversation. Up to 2048 characters.
pageUrlYesThe full URL of the page the issue is about (e.g. https://docs.sodax.com//getting-started), so the finding is linked to the exact page.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

The description says 'Report an issue' and 'Send one call per distinct issue,' which implies a write/submission action. However, annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating no side effects. This is a direct contradiction between the description's implied behavior and the annotations, making behavioral transparency critically poor.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the purpose. It is a bit long but every sentence earns its place, covering usage rules, dedup, and exclusions without fluff.

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?

Despite the contradiction, the description is extremely complete for a feedback tool: it covers when to use, what constitutes an issue, user reporting, sanity checks, dedup behavior, and exclusions. No output schema is needed for a one-way reporting tool, and the schema handles parameter documentation.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all three parameters (goal, content, pageUrl). The main description does not add extra parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already offers, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Report an issue') and the specific resource ('documentation of Docs'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like docs_getPage and docs_searchDocumentation. It is unequivocal about what the tool does.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('when you come across content that is outdated, contradictory...' and 'when the user themselves reports a problem'), when-not-to-use ('Do not use this tool to confirm that a page is accurate'), and additional operational rules (one call per issue, no duplicates, sanity check). This is exemplary usage guidance.

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

All SODAX Builders MCP toolsInspect
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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools have overlapping scopes: sodax_get_token_supply, sodax_get_total_supply, and sodax_get_circulating_supply all provide supply data, and the four money_market_* getters could be conflated. However, most tools are distinct and descriptions help.

Naming Consistency3/5

The sodax_* tools follow a consistent get_<resource> pattern, but docs_* tools mix camelCase (getPage, searchDocumentation) with snake_case (list_tools), and there are non-get verbs like refresh and submit. This inconsistency makes the naming pattern less predictable.

Tool Count2/5

With 40 tools, the server exceeds the 25-tool threshold for even a comprehensive API. Many endpoints are granular (e.g., separate supply tools) and could be consolidated, making the set feel bloated.

Completeness4/5

The tools cover a wide range of SODAX features: docs, money market, AMM, relay, solver, token data, and user positions. Missing are write operations (except relay_submit) and a few data endpoints like pool details, but for a query-oriented MCP it's largely complete.

Resources