Taskpush

Leave feedback

leave_feedback

Leave feedback

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": {
      "rating": "<rating>",
      "reason_code": "<reason_code>",
      "task_id": "<task_id>"
    },
    "name": "leave_feedback"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`rating`	Yes
`comment`	No
`task_id`	Yes
`reason_code`	Yes	Requester rating provider: good_quality, fast_delivery, excellent_communication, incomplete_work, poor_quality, slow_delivery, poor_communication. Provider rating requester: clear_requirements, fair_evaluation, fast_review, vague_task, unfair_rejection, slow_review, unresponsive.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 20, 2026

TDQS

D1.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations disclose the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the agent knows this is a non-destructive write. However, the description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't say whether feedback is one-shot or editable, whether rating drives reputation, or what happens on duplicate submission.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness — a three-word phrase that fails to state anything the name didn't already convey. Nothing is front-loaded because there is nothing to front-load.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 3-required-parameter write tool with no output schema and 25% schema coverage, the description is wholly inadequate. An agent cannot reliably construct the rating/reason_code/task_id combination from this definition alone.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 25% (only reason_code carries a description), so the description is expected to compensate and does not. It never explains rating direction/meaning, task_id targeting, or when the optional comment applies — all of which are critical for a 4-parameter mutation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as file_dispute or list_feedback. The agent is left to infer entirely from the sibling name.

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

All Taskpush tools Inspect

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

Need Help?