Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Cloady

Cloady

Official
by Cloady
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Review Template

reviewTemplate
Destructive

Rate and review a template with one review per account; submit again to replace your existing review.

Instructions

Rate and review a template (one review per account; sending again replaces it).

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": {
      "slug": "<slug>"
    },
    "name": "reviewTemplate"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slugYes
requestBodyNoThe JSON request body.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.18.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark this as non-read-only and destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the genuinely useful behavioral facts: a review is one-per-account and resubmitting replaces the previous one. It doesn't say what gets replaced (rating only, or body too) or what the call returns.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action, with the key caveat in a parenthetical. Nothing is wasted and nothing is buried.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential upsert semantics but leaves gaps: which fields are overwritten on resubmission, whether the response is the created review, and whether any permission scope is required. Adequate but not complete.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The description says nothing about the two parameters. Schema coverage is 50% — requestBody is documented only as 'The JSON request body', and slug has no description at all — so the description should compensate for slug and the rating/body fields, but it adds no meaning.

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 gives a specific verb-plus-resource ('Rate and review a template') that an agent can map directly to the endpoint, and it's distinguishable in spirit from deleteTemplateReview and listTemplates. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it contrasts with.

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 — the parenthetical explains the one-review-per-account constraint and that resubmission replaces the old review, which tells an agent this is an upsert, but there's no explicit 'use this when you want to leave or change your review; use deleteTemplateReview to remove it.'

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools