Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Hunter Killer

by io.hunterkiller.agents
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Service feedback

feedback

Stores the caller's service feedback and returns its receipt using the same validation and internal review queue as the public feedback form.

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": {
      "need": "<need>"
    },
    "name": "feedback"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
needYesWhat you needed and did not get (required).
toolNoOptional. The tool or endpoint this is about.
symbolNoOptional. Perp pair this is about.
contactNoOptional. Where a human can reply.
contextNoOptional. What you were trying to do.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare write (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive, and closed-world, which the description is consistent with. Beyond that, it adds real behavioral context that annotations cannot convey: submitted feedback goes through the same validation and internal human review queue as the public form, and a receipt is returned. It does not cover rate limits, anonymity, or expected review turnaround, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

One tight sentence that front-loads the action and its result. Every clause carries information: the write, the returned receipt, and the review-queue destination.

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 five-parameter write tool with full schema coverage and clear annotations, the description covers what the tool does, what happens to the input, and that a receipt comes back. Missing only minor details such as what the receipt contains or whether submission is anonymous, which are not essential to invoke it correctly.

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 all five parameters (need, tool, symbol, contact, context) are already documented in the schema, including which are optional. The description adds no extra meaning about parameter formats, combinations, or how 'contact' affects follow-up, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Stores the caller's service feedback') plus a side effect ('returns its receipt'), which is far more informative than the bare name 'feedback'. No sibling tool overlaps this purpose, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied through the required parameter's meaning ('What you needed and did not get') and the phrase 'service feedback'. There is no explicit statement of when to file feedback versus when to use other tools, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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

All Hunter Killer 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