Skip to main content
Glama
makash

feedmyagent

by makash
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Report Incident

report_incident

Submit security advisories, outages, or novel attack patterns your agent encounters to the feed for pending classification before publication; not for upcoming events.

Instructions

Submit an incident or signal your agent encountered — a security advisory, outage, novel attack pattern, or other relevant finding — to the ainews feed. Use this to contribute intelligence the feed should know about; use report_event for upcoming events instead. Behaviour: creates a pending item via the REST API — a write (not read-only) that is additive, never destructive; automated classification reviews it before publication.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNoOptional public https URL of the primary source (advisory, post, changelog). Each URL can be submitted once; a duplicate returns a conflict error.
titleYesOne-line headline naming what happened and to which component, e.g. "Prompt injection via tool descriptions in <server> 1.2". Keep it under 300 characters.
descriptionYesPlain-text details: what happened, affected product and versions, impact, and how you found out. Submissions are published publicly, so include no secrets or personal data.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesThe created submission.
sourceYesProvenance of the payload.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.50.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / description / description
      Previous value: -"Incident details."New value: +"Plain-text details: what happened, affected product and versions, impact, and how you found out. Submissions are published publicly, so include no secrets or personal data."
    • changedInput schema / properties / title / description
      Previous value: -"Short incident title."New value: +"One-line headline naming what happened and to which component, e.g. \"Prompt injection via tool descriptions in <server> 1.2\". Keep it under 300 characters."
    • changedInput schema / properties / url / description
      Previous value: -"Optional reference URL."New value: +"Optional public https URL of the primary source (advisory, post, changelog). Each URL can be submitted once; a duplicate returns a conflict error."
  2. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is partly given. The description goes further by disclosing the pending-state lifecycle and an automated classification review before publication, which the annotations do not carry. It partially wastes words re-stating 'a write (not read-only) that is additive, never destructive', which is why it is a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by sibling differentiation and behavioral notes. The 'a write (not read-only) that is additive, never destructive' clause is redundant against the annotations and could be trimmed.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Purpose, sibling routing, write semantics and the moderation lifecycle are all covered, and the schema handles parameter detail. Nothing needed to call this correctly is missing.

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%, with each of the three parameters documented in the schema (including the duplicate-URL conflict behavior). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Submit an incident ... to the ainews feed') with an explicit enumeration of what qualifies (security advisory, outage, novel attack pattern). It directly names the sibling it is not (report_event) and the condition that separates them, so an agent can disambiguate without opening either schema.

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?

States when to use ('contribute intelligence the feed should know about') and when not to, routing the agent to report_event for upcoming events. This is explicit alternative-selection guidance rather than implied usage.

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