Skip to main content
Glama

Markdown by mdedit.ai

by io.github.mangoappstudio
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Add a review suggestion

add_suggestion
Idempotent

Add an anchored replacement suggestion for a human to accept or reject. Accepts natural workspace names and document titles; internal routing identifiers are optional. Returns suggestionId and targetId for accept_suggestion or reject_suggestion.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteNo
anchorYes
replaceYes
targetIdNo
articleIdNoInternal document identifier when already available. Omit it when the user referred to the document by title.
commandIdYesGlobally unique UUID for this logical review mutation. Generate it once and reuse the exact value if the tool call is retried.
workspaceIdNoInternal workspace identifier when already available. Omit it when the user referred to a workspace by name or has only one workspace.
articleTitleNoHuman-visible document title. Prefer this over asking the user for an internal document identifier.
workspaceNameNoHuman-visible workspace name. Prefer this over asking the user for an internal workspace identifier.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
eventsYes
appliedYes
targetIdYesReview target containing the suggestion. Pass this exact value with suggestionId to accept_suggestion or reject_suggestion.
articleIdYes
commandIdYes
workspaceIdYes
suggestionIdYesStable suggestion identifier. Pass this exact value with targetId to accept_suggestion or reject_suggestion.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / commandId / description
      Added value: +"Globally unique UUID for this logical review mutation. Generate it once and reuse the exact value if the tool call is retried."
    • addedInput schema / properties / commandId / format
      Added value: +"uuid"
    • removedInput schema / properties / commandId / minLength
      Removed value: -1
    • addedInput schema / properties / commandId / pattern
      Added value: +"^([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)$"
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "anchor",
-  "replace"
-]New value: +[
+  "anchor",
+  "replace",
+  "commandId"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate a mutating, idempotent, non-destructive operation, and the description does not contradict them. It adds useful behavioral context: the tool resolves natural names and returns suggestionId/targetId for downstream accept/reject calls, implying no direct document modification.

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 two concise sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by parameter flexibility and return-value workflow. Every sentence contributes useful information with no filler.

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 9-parameter tool with an output schema and idempotency annotations, the description plus schema covers the main usage decisions: natural-name resolution, optional internal IDs, and downstream accept/reject workflow. The remaining gaps around targetId and anchor selection are noticeable but not crippling.

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 56%, and the description adds useful meaning for the name/identifier parameters and characterizes 'replace' as the replacement text. However, it does not clarify the input semantics of targetId, the optional note field, or how to choose between the quote and range anchor shapes, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 states a specific verb (Add), a clear resource (anchored replacement suggestion), and the purpose (for a human to accept or reject). It also differentiates itself from the sibling accept_suggestion/reject_suggestion tools by describing creation rather than resolution.

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 description conveys clear usage context: this tool creates a proposal rather than applying a change, and natural workspace/document names are acceptable, so the agent does not need to ask for internal IDs. It does not explicitly name alternatives like add_comment or edit_article, but the workflow is reasonably clear.

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

All Markdown by mdedit.ai 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