FeedMyAgent

Report Incident

report_incident

Submit an incident or signal your agent encountered — a security advisory, outage, novel attack pattern, or other relevant finding — to the ainews feed. Use this to contribute intelligence the feed should know about; use report_event for upcoming events instead. Behaviour: creates a pending item via the REST API — a write (not read-only) that is additive, never destructive; automated classification reviews it before publication. Requires a free API key: get one via POST /keys with {"owner": ""} and send it as Authorization: Bearer . Other products: call list_products.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	No	Optional reference URL.
`title`	Yes	Short incident title.
`description`	Yes	Incident details.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes	The created submission.
`source`	Yes	Provenance of the payload.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 22, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "additionalProperties": false,
+      "description": "The created submission.",
+      "properties": {
+        "id": {
+          "description": "Created item id.",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "status": {
+          "description": "Moderation status; usually \"pending\" until classification publishes it.",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "url": {
+          "description": "Reference URL stored for the submission.",
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "id",
+        "status",
+        "url"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "source": {
+      "additionalProperties": false,
+      "description": "Provenance of the payload.",
+      "properties": {
+        "name": {
+          "description": "Feed name.",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "url": {
+          "description": "Feed homepage URL.",
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "name",
+        "url"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "data",
+    "source"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare the write/idempotent/openWorld/destructive profile, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: it creates a pending item via REST, automated classification reviews before publication, and it supplies the exact auth requirement (free API key via POST /keys with the owner payload and Bearer header). That is materially useful behavior not visible in the annotations.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and the sibling alternative in the first sentence before behavior and auth. It is dense but every clause (scope, behavior, auth, cross-reference) carries distinct value; only the trailing list_products note feels slightly appended.

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?

With an output schema present and 100% param coverage, the description need not explain returns. It covers purpose, routing, mutation semantics, review pipeline, and the full auth path — nothing an agent needs to invoke correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100% with 3 simple params, so the schema already carries full parameter meaning. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, which is the baseline-3 case.

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?

States a specific verb (submit) and resource (incident/finding) and enumerates the kinds of findings accepted (security advisory, outage, novel attack pattern). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling report_event by scope (intelligence now vs. upcoming events).

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?

Explicitly says to use this for contributing intelligence and to use report_event for upcoming events instead — a named alternative with the condition that selects it. This is a textbook when-to-use/when-not routing.

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

All FeedMyAgent 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.