Tasvr

Report a gap, bug, or request back to TASVR

submit_feedback

Sends a gap, bug or request to the TASVR team: a missing preset type, a search that found nothing, a confusing tool.

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": {
      "category": "<category>",
      "message": "<message>"
    },
    "name": "submit_feedback"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`context`	No	Anything structured worth attaching — e.g. {searchedQuery, category, taskId} for a missing-preset report.
`message`	Yes	Specific and concrete, e.g. "No art-style or camera-angle exists for 'documentary/photojournalistic' explicitly — had to approximate with Handheld Reportage + Candid/Street. A dedicated documentary art-style would help." Not just "missing feature".
`category`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`saved`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that this routes a message to a human team, implying a non-idempotent side-effect with no visible immediate result, but it says nothing about rate limits, whether submissions are tracked or acknowledged, or what happens to the report.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with a colon and three illustrative cases — nothing redundant and the purpose lands immediately. The example list is functional rather than padding.

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 three-parameter reporting tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose and typical triggers adequately; return values needn't be explained. The remaining gap is sibling differentiation from report_image_problem, which matters given a reporting tool already exists for images.

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 coverage is 67% and the schema itself richly documents 'message' (with a concrete example) and 'context'. The description echoes those examples but never mentions the 'category' enum values or how a given situation maps to one, so the one undocumented parameter stays unexplained beyond the schema.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Sends a gap, bug or request to the TASVR team') and three concrete examples (missing preset type, empty search, confusing tool) that pin down the scope. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling report_image_problem, so an agent must infer the boundary between general feedback and image-specific problem reporting.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The examples imply the triggering conditions ('a search that found nothing'), which gives an agent a reasonable sense of when to call this rather than keep working. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative such as report_image_problem for image defects, leaving the sibling routing to inference.

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

All Tasvr 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?