Cherami

Send feedback to Cherami

submit_feedback

Destructive

Send Cherami a problem report, suggestion or request for a higher allowance. The request carries the human's verified email, and replies go there.

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": {
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "submit_feedback"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`body`	Yes	The message to Cherami. Leave out credentials and unrelated private mail.
`title`	No	Optional short subject.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`status`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 9, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / body / description

Previous value: -"The message to Cherami. Do not include credentials or unrelated private mail."New value: +"The message to Cherami. Leave out credentials and unrelated private mail."

First observedOct 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description notably adds no behavioral context about permanence, delivery guarantees, rate limits, or why it is destructive. It does add one useful behavioral fact: the request carries the human's verified email and replies are directed there, which is not derivable from annotations. With annotations already covering the safety profile, this partial addition earns a middling score.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its scope, then the delivery detail. No filler. Slightly more could be said about the feedback-vs-mail distinction, but nothing here is wasted.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile. The remaining gap is routing clarity: nothing tells the agent how this differs from send_message for the same recipient, which matters given ~40 adjacent email tools.

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% – both 'body' and 'title' are documented in the schema, including the explicit warning to omit credentials and unrelated private mail. The description adds no parameter syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb ('send') and resource ('Cherami') and enumerates the feedback types covered (problem report, suggestion, allowance request). It's distinguishable from the email siblings (send_message, send_draft) as an out-of-band feedback channel, though the description never explicitly says 'feedback' is separate from normal mail flow.

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?

Implied usage: send a problem report/suggestion/allowance request. But no guidance on when to prefer this over send_message, what counts as feedback vs. regular mail, or any preconditions (though the 'verified email' note hints at identity requirements). Nothing names an alternative or an exclusion.

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

All Cherami 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.

Resources

Need Help?