Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Pylon MCP Server

Pylon MCP Server

by mgmonteleone
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

pylon_add_issue_followers

Add team members or customers as followers to a Pylon issue to keep them notified of updates.

Instructions

Add team members (user_ids) or customers (contact_ids) as followers to a Pylon issue.

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": {
      "issue_id": "<issue_id>"
    },
    "name": "pylon_add_issue_followers"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
issue_idYesPylon issue ID
user_idsNoArray of team member user IDs to add as followers
contact_idsNoArray of customer contact IDs to add as followers

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv3.7.2

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states it adds followers (a mutation) but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, permissions, or error conditions. For a mutation tool, more transparency is needed.

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?

Single sentence with no fluff. Front-loaded with the action and parameters. Every word is necessary.

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 action tool, the description covers main purpose and parameter roles. No output schema needed. Could mention that it modifies the issue's followers list, but not essential.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description clarifies that user_ids are for team members and contact_ids for customers, but the schema already includes those descriptions. No additional semantic value beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the action: add team members or customers as followers to a Pylon issue. It uses specific verbs and resources, distinguishing it from siblings like pylon_remove_issue_followers and pylon_get_issue_followers.

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 implies usage context (adding followers) and differentiates from siblings by naming the two types of followers. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives beyond sibling tool names.

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