Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

OrgGen AI

by ai.orggen
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

update_feedback_status

Destructive

Changes the status of one feedback, or of a batch of up to 25, in the product feedback queue (the ones list_feedbacks reads). ⚠️ PLATFORM ADMINISTRATORS ONLY: any other account is refused and nothing is written — a project owner is not a platform administrator. Moving a feedback to "resolved" also records when and by whom it was resolved. The batch is not atomic: the response lists the outcome of each id (updated, not_found or failed) and success is true only when every id was updated. It changes the status only — no title, description or other field.

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": {
      "ids": "<ids>",
      "status": "<status>"
    },
    "name": "update_feedback_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idsYesIds of the feedbacks to update, from list_feedbacks: one id for a single feedback, up to 25 for a batch.
statusYesNew status for every listed feedback: new, triaged, planned, in_progress, resolved, rejected, duplicate.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: the admin-only authorization requirement with a concrete counterexample, the audit side effect when moving to 'resolved', and the non-atomic batch semantics with per-id outcomes (updated/not_found/failed) and the meaning of `success`. These are failure-mode details an agent cannot infer from the annotations.

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?

Front-loads the verb and scope, then immediately the admin-only warning, then the side effect, then the batch semantics, then the field restriction. Every sentence carries distinct, decision-relevant information with no filler, and the only mild redundancy (repeating the 25 limit) is a low-cost reinforcement of a hard constraint.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly takes on the burden of describing the response shape (per-id outcomes plus the `success` flag), which is the key thing an agent needs to interpret results. The only gap is that it does not point to the sibling tool for editing non-status fields.

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 both parameters (ids, status) are already fully documented, including the max of 25 and the enum values. The description restates the batch size and the 'status applies to every listed id' behavior, which is mildly useful, but adds little genuinely new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema — 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Changes the status of one feedback, or of a batch of up to 25') and scopes the resource to the product feedback queue by naming the sibling that reads it (list_feedbacks). An agent can distinguish this from update_* siblings on other entities and from submit_feedback without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit eligibility gate ('PLATFORM ADMINISTRATORS ONLY ... a project owner is not a platform administrator'), which is exactly the kind of pre-call check an agent needs. It also clarifies the boundary of the operation ('changes the status only — no title, description or other field'), though it does not name the alternative tool to use for those other edits.

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

All OrgGen AI toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources