Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Hermai MCP

Hermai MCP

Official
by hermai-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Submit a schema request

submit_schema_request
Idempotent

Submit a six-field intake request to report missing or brittle browser workflows. Provide task, domain, authentication, output shape, failure mode, and read/write type.

Instructions

Submit the six-field intake for a missing or brittle browser workflow. Never include cookies, API keys, or private session data.

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": {
      "domain": "<domain>",
      "task": "<task>",
      "read_or_write": "<read_or_write>",
      "auth_shape": "<auth_shape>",
      "output_shape": "<output_shape>",
      "failure_mode": "<failure_mode>"
    },
    "name": "submit_schema_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
taskYesRecurring task the agent is trying to perform.
domainYesExact domain that agents need data from.
auth_shapeYesAuthentication shape, for example public, anonymous, login required, OAuth, or owner-approved.
source_urlNoOptional public thread, issue, or page where this request came from.
failure_modeYesWhat breaks today: selector drift, timeout, captcha, stale values, API shape change, etc.
output_shapeYesSpecific fields or JSON shape the agent needs.
read_or_writeYesWhether the workflow reads data, writes data, or both.
idempotency_keyNoOptional stable key for retry-safe submits.
requester_agentNoOptional agent or builder identifier.
requester_contactNoOptional contact. Do not include secrets.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.1

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which partially cover behavioral traits. The description adds a security constraint (avoiding secrets) but does not disclose the outcome of submission (e.g., return value or next steps), which is a gap given the lack of an output schema.

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 consists of two concise, front-loaded sentences. Every word contributes meaning: the first defines the action and target, the second adds critical safety instruction. No unnecessary information.

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?

While the description covers the core action and a key constraint, it lacks context about the submission process (e.g., expected output, how to track the request via sibling tool check_schema_request_status). Given the tool has 10 parameters and no output schema, more detail on post-submission behavior would improve completeness.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by emphasizing the required six fields and providing a security constraint that applies to parameters like requester_contact. This guidance helps the agent avoid mistakes.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: submitting a six-field intake for missing or brittle browser workflows. It uses a specific verb ('submit') and resource ('schema request'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like lookup_schema and check_schema_request_status which handle different operations.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides explicit context for when to use the tool ('missing or brittle browser workflow') and gives a security guideline ('Never include cookies, API keys, or private session data'). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives like lookup_schema for existing schemas.

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