Skip to main content
Glama

Snapback

by io.github.ra1labsworkx-wq
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

request_pattern

Leave us a message: ask us to add a failure pattern to the library, or report a problem we couldn't diagnose well. Use this when diagnose_trace didn't have a good answer, when you keep hitting a failure we don't classify, or when you want a specific kind of problem supported. It goes straight to our roadmap/backlog. Free — no token needed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindNo'pattern_request' | 'problem' | 'message' (default 'message')
contextNooptional: the trace/error you couldn't get diagnosed (redacted server-side)
messageYeswhat you'd like added, or the problem we couldn't solve — be specific
verdict_idNooptional: the verdict this relates to

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "description": "A JSON object (returned as text in result.content[0].text). Diagnosis tools return {matched, family, fix, confidence, source, action_class, auto_safe, gate}; other tools return their own JSON result.",
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare the safety profile (readOnly false, destructive false, openWorld true, non-idempotent), so the description's job is to add what they cannot say. It does: the message 'goes straight to our roadmap/backlog', context is 'redacted server-side', and it is 'Free — no token needed', which is important budget context given the sibling budget_guard/my_usage tools.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action followed by the trigger conditions and the cost/side-effect note. Every sentence earns its place; slight redundancy between the first and second sentences keeps it from a 5.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and all four params are documented. The description supplies the missing behavioural context (routing destination, redaction, no token cost), leaving only the sibling-overlap with submit_feedback unaddressed.

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%, so the schema already documents kind, context, message and verdict_id; the baseline is 3. The description adds only marginal param-level value ('be specific', server-side redaction of context) beyond what the schema states.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a concrete verb+resource: 'ask us to add a failure pattern to the library, or report a problem we couldn't diagnose well.' It is clearly not diagnose_trace (which analyses) and not report_outcome. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling submit_feedback, which sounds like a near-overlapping channel, so an agent cannot fully disambiguate on purpose alone.

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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions: 'when diagnose_trace didn't have a good answer, when you keep hitting a failure we don't classify, or when you want a specific kind of problem supported.' Strong usage context, but no 'when not to use' and no routing away from submit_feedback.

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

All Snapback toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources