Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Scripe

by io.scripe
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Request review

request_review
DestructiveIdempotent

request_review — send Scripe posts for REVIEW and assign the reviewer, many at once (up to 50): each post moves into the workspace's review stage with a pending review for that person, and the reviewer gets ONE notification for the whole batch. TWO-PHASE: the first call sends NOTHING — it returns a PREVIEW (which posts go to whom, what happens to each, how the reviewer is notified) plus a confirmationToken. Show the user the preview and wait for their explicit yes; only then call again with the SAME arguments plus the token. Never confirm for the user, not even on autopilot. reviewer is a workspace member's user id (list_team), email or exact name; ask the user who should review when it is not obvious. It never approves or rejects — the reviewer decides in Scripe. Per post the result says requested, already with that reviewer, or why it was refused, with a link to the post in Scripe. Needs a plan with content approvals.

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": {
      "postIds": "<postIds>",
      "reviewer": "<reviewer>"
    },
    "name": "request_review"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
postIdsYesThe posts (`post_…`) to send for review.
reviewerYesWho reviews: a workspace member's user id, email, or exact name.
reviewDeadlineNoOptional review deadline, YYYY-MM-DD.
confirmationTokenNoOMIT on the first call — you get a PREVIEW back with this token and nothing happens yet. Show the user the preview and wait for their explicit yes in the conversation; only then call again with the SAME arguments plus this token. Never confirm on the user's behalf, not even on autopilot. Expires 30 minutes after the preview.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the first call is a no-op preview, the reviewer receives ONE notification for the whole batch, the token expires, and results are per-post with links. This is the rare case where the description fully explains the mutation's behavior.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: purpose, then the critical two-phase warning, then edge behavior. Every sentence carries information, though the two-phase instruction is repeated in both description and schema, adding slight redundancy.

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?

For a batched, destructive, two-phase mutation with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, side effects, confirmation protocol, and per-post result shape. An agent has everything needed to invoke it safely.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by naming list_team as the source for reviewer and stressing that the same arguments plus token must be resubmitted on the second call, which clarifies how the required params interact.

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 and resource ('send Scripe posts for REVIEW and assign the reviewer'), plus scope (batch up to 50) and the resulting state ('moves into the workspace's review stage'). It is unmistakable against siblings like list_waiting_for_me or posts_write.

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 covers when to use ('ask the user who should review when it is not obvious'), what it deliberately does NOT do ('never approves or rejects'), and a prerequisite ('needs a plan with content approvals'). The two-phase confirmation sequence is spelled out step by step.

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

All Scripe 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