Skip to main content
Glama

PCD (Portable Context Deck)

by ai.portablecontext.mcp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Write Feedback

write_feedback

Submit a structured platform bug, feature or support report.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindYesFeedback kind — bug | feature | support | session, per the feedback manifest. Each kind has its own section template.
refsNoOptional rich pointers, same shape as signal refs, e.g. [{kind:'deck', handle:'…'}, {kind:'file', path:'…'}].
actionNoDefault 'write'. 'describe' + kind returns the kind's section contract (names, required flags, caps, hints) without writing — the pre-flight before composing a report. 'validate': pre-send check — runs the kind template's section validation (required sections, max_length caps) on a candidate content WITHOUT writing; returns { valid, missing_required[], over_cap: [{field, len, cap}] }.
contentNoFilled template sections keyed by section name — required for write, ignored on describe. Required sections must be present; over-cap content is rejected with the limit named, never truncated.
contractNoHelp mode — return the complete contract with no operation performed.
container_idNoContainer where the feedback is raised — required for write, not needed on describe. The platform's resolution comes back as a signal into this container.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • changedInput schema / properties / contract / description
      Previous value: -"Help mode — pass true to receive this tool's full _meta.contract (all variants) with NO operation performed."New value: +"Help mode — return the complete contract with no operation performed."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations mark readOnly=false and destructive=false, and the description clearly indicates writing only for the write action while describe/validate are no-write. It also explains that container_id is required for write and that the resolution returns as a signal. It does not explicitly state persistence or failure behavior, but side effects are generally clear.

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?

The main description is concise and front-loaded, while detailed mode and parameter behavior are placed in field descriptions where they belong. The wording is dense but not redundant, though some field descriptions repeat 'required for write' in multiple places.

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?

Given no output schema, the description covers input requirements, mode behavior, validation return shape, and the signal resolution for container_id. It does not specify the success response for write beyond the signal resolution, but the essentials are present.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Every parameter has an informative description that goes beyond basic schema types: kind lists allowed values, action explains each enum behavior, content distinguishes required-on-write and cap rejection, and container_id explains when it is required and what happens with resolution. This fully equips an agent to populate inputs.

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 clear verb-object statement: 'Submit a structured platform bug, feature or support report,' which distinguishes it from read_feedback and other siblings. The title and description align, and field-level details clarify that it is for structured report creation.

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 specifies mode-specific behavior: describe returns the contract, validate pre-checks content without writing, and write is the default; contract is help mode. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as write_signal or update_signal, so some inference remains.

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

All PCD (Portable Context Deck) 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