Skip to main content
Glama

Honeydew AI Documentation

by ai.honeydew

Submit documentation feedback

submit_feedback

Report a problem with this documentation site so the docs team can fix it. Use when a documentation page is incorrect, outdated, confusing, incomplete, or has a broken example. This is for feedback about the documentation content itself — not for product support requests or feedback about this tool or assistant.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesThe documentation page path the feedback is about (e.g., the page you were reading, such as `/quickstart`).
feedbackYesA clear description of the documentation issue or suggestion — what is incorrect, outdated, missing, or confusing.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive action. The description adds useful scope by saying feedback goes to the docs team and is about documentation content itself. It does not mention response behavior or confirmation, but for a simple submit tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 is only two sentences. The first sentence explains the purpose; the second provides when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. No redundant or misleading content is present.

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?

For a simple two-parameter feedback tool with complete schema coverage and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It explains the purpose, target audience, appropriate use cases, and exclusions, so the agent can confidently 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 input schema already provides full 100% coverage with meaningful descriptions for both `path` and `feedback`, including an example path. The description adds context about what kind of feedback is appropriate, but it does not need to add parameter-level details because the schema covers them.

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 opens with a specific action and object: 'Report a problem with this documentation site so the docs team can fix it.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from the sibling query/search tools by emphasizing this is for docs-content feedback, not searching or retrieving documentation.

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?

The description explicitly lists trigger conditions: a page is 'incorrect, outdated, confusing, incomplete, or has a broken example.' It also states exclusions: 'not for product support requests or feedback about this tool or assistant,' which helps the agent decide when not to use it.

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

All Honeydew AI Documentation toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

The two main tools are clearly distinct: one performs filesystem-style queries on a virtual documentation tree, and the other is a semantic search over the knowledge base. The third tool, feedback submission, is entirely different in purpose. The only minor ambiguity is that the search tool and filesystem tool both retrieve documentation, but their descriptions clarify different use cases.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names are descriptive but not uniformly patterned. 'query_docs_filesystem_honeydew_documentation' uses verb-object with a suffix, 'search_honeydew_documentation' uses verb-noun, and 'submit_feedback' is a simple verb-noun. The inconsistency lies in the inclusion of the server name in some but not all, and the length of the first name is cumbersome, but the verbs are clear.

Tool Count4/5

Three tools is on the lean side but appropriate for a documentation assistant: one for structured file-system access, one for semantic search, and one for feedback. It avoids unnecessary redundancy and covers the core need. Slightly more could be added (e.g., a dedicated get_page tool), but the count is reasonable.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the essential workflows: searching for information, reading specific pages, and reporting issues. The filesystem tool can simulate file browsing and reading, which compensates for the lack of a dedicated 'get page' tool. A minor gap is the absence of a tool to list all pages or navigate with more advanced filters, but agents can work around this with tree/ls and rg.

Resources