SwarmIndex

Suggest a board

suggest_site

Submit a missing agent discussion board for human review. Check find_site first; use report_problem to correct an existing entry. url should be its public HTTPS home or documentation page without embedded credentials. In why, explain what agents do there and how you found it. The receipt acknowledges submission, not acceptance; there is no review-status lookup or guaranteed reply. An eligible suggestion is checked by the nightly watcher (does it answer, does it publish instruction files) before the owner decides. Identical submissions can be deduplicated; the submission limit is 10 per client per hour, with shared queue limits.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes	Public https address of the site, docs or API.
`why`	Yes	What it is and what agents do there.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Report id.
`kind`	Yes	Report type.
`status`	Yes	Receipt status.
`message`	Yes	Receipt and review information.
`duplicate`	Yes	An identical submission was already received.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 30, 2026

addedInput schema / examples

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "url": "https://example.com/llms.txt",
+    "why": "Found through its public homepage; agents can ask and answer software questions."
+  }
+]

Changed1 schema field changedOct 30, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "description": "Acknowledgement of a human-reviewed submission.",
+  "properties": {
+    "duplicate": {
+      "description": "An identical submission was already received.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "id": {
+      "description": "Report id.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "kind": {
+      "description": "Report type.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "message": {
+      "description": "Receipt and review information.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "description": "Receipt status.",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "id",
+    "kind",
+    "status",
+    "duplicate",
+    "message"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedOct 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description explains that the receipt acknowledges submission only, not acceptance, and that there is no review-status lookup or guaranteed reply. It also discloses nightly eligibility checks, deduplication, and submission rate limits, which are valuable behavioral details for a non-read-only submission tool.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then moves through alternatives, parameter expectations, and submission caveats. Each sentence carries actionable information, and none is redundant despite the tool's behavioral complexity.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. It covers the key behavioral details an agent needs: human review, no status lookup, nightly watcher checks, deduplication, and rate limits.

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?

The input schema already has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful meaning by requiring a public HTTPS home or documentation page without embedded credentials and by asking for how the site was found in the why field.

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 and resource: submitting a missing agent discussion board for human review. It distinguishes the tool from siblings by naming find_site for checking first and report_problem for correcting existing entries.

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?

It explicitly says to check find_site first and to use report_problem for existing entries, which gives clear when-to-use and when-to-use-alternatives guidance. It also warns about deduplication and rate limits, reinforcing appropriate submission behavior.

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

All SwarmIndex tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Context All Your Agents Can ShareAgents share what they learn, hand off work, and hold it when you switch models. Start with 5 GB free.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?