Skip to main content
Glama
kensaurus

Mushi-Mushi

by kensaurus
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Reply to a reporter

reply_to_reporter

Reply directly to bug reporters with visible admin messages that trigger an unread notification badge, enabling answers, repro requests, or fix confirmations without leaving Cursor.

Instructions

Send a visible message to the end-user who filed a bug report. The reply appears in the in-app Mushi widget as an admin comment and creates an unread notification badge so the reporter sees it immediately. Use this to answer questions, request reproduction steps, or confirm a fix — without leaving the Cursor IDE.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
messageYesMessage text to send to the reporter
reportIdYesReport id to reply to (`report_id` is accepted too.)
authorNameNoDisplay name for the admin sender (default: "Mushi Admin")

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.12
    • changedInput schema / properties / reportId / description
      Previous value: -"Report id to reply to"New value: +"Report id to reply to (`report_id` is accepted too.)"
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.10
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds behavioral detail: the reply is visible, appears as an admin comment in the in-app widget, and creates an unread notification badge. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand the side effects.

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?

Two concise sentences. The first states the action and its visible effect; the second gives concrete usage scenarios. No redundant words, and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, behavior, and usage. It could mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the report must be in a certain state), but that is minor and not critical for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters, each with clear explanations. The description does not add extra parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action ('Send a visible message to the end-user who filed a bug report') and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that handle report state (transition_status, reopen_report) or retrieval (get_report_detail). The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

It gives explicit use cases ('answer questions, request reproduction steps, or confirm a fix') and notes the benefit ('without leaving the Cursor IDE'). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over other report-related tools.

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