Trent

List feedback

list_feedback

Read-only

Read a project's feedback and each note's customer_status: waiting, in_scan, used, rejected or expired. Use for "has Trent taken my feedback into account yet?".

The listing describes stored feedback. A new record requires feedback
from the user's current message. If an expected note is missing, report
the listing and stop. Do not record it again; that can create a duplicate.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_feedback"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Maximum items to return, 1 to 500. Omit for 100. A value above 500 returns 500.
`keywords`	No	Return feedback whose text contains this string.
`statuses`	No	Comma-separated lifecycle statuses, or 'all'. Omit to read feedback still waiting to be used.
`project_id`	No	Project ID (provide either project_id or project_name)
`project_name`	No	Project name (provide either project_id or project_name)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`count`	No	Number of items returned.
`error`	No	True when the call itself failed. False for successful calls, including a scan still running, an already approved plan, or a repository classified as non-agentic. The reason field describes these workflow states.
`reason`	No	A stable snake_case code from the allowed set. Present on every error and on successful calls that carry a workflow state.
`message`	No	Exactly one sentence written for the user. Never raw exception text or a backend error string, which may expose private details.
`feedback`	No	Recorded feedback, newest first, with lifecycle status. Each entry carries item_id (stable across corrections), version and customer_status (waiting, in_scan, used, rejected or expired; absent for a removed note).
`metadata`	No	Caller metadata, such as 'expiration_warning'. Substantive results have their own fields. Never includes exception or backend error text, which may expose private details.
`truncated`	No	True when the limit cut the result short.
`next_steps`	No	Recommended next actions, in order.
`retry_after_seconds`	No	With reason rate_limited, how many seconds Trent asks the caller to wait.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 30, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / retry_after_seconds

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "With reason rate_limited, how many seconds Trent asks the caller to wait.",
+  "title": "Retry After Seconds"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedOct 24, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / feedback / description

Previous value: -"Recorded feedback, newest first, with lifecycle status. Each entry carries item_id (stable across corrections) and version."New value: +"Recorded feedback, newest first, with lifecycle status. Each entry carries item_id (stable across corrections), version and customer_status (waiting, in_scan, used, rejected or expired; absent for a removed note)."

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it clarifies that this is a listing of stored feedback and warns against re-recording a missing note because that can create duplicates. It does not cover auth or rate limits, but those are not central for a read-only list.

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 description is front-loaded with purpose and includes a practical usage example. It is mostly tight, though the sentence 'The listing describes stored feedback' is slightly redundant. Every sentence contributes meaning, and the caution is clearly separated.

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 that annotations cover safety and an output schema exists, the description supplies enough context for correct invocation: purpose, usage example, and behavioral caution. It does not explicitly state that a project identifier is needed (either project_id or project_name), but the schema documents that requirement fully.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. However, the description adds meaning beyond the schema by enumerating the possible customer_status values: 'waiting, in_scan, used, rejected or expired.' The statuses parameter schema does not list these values, so this is a useful addition.

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 ('Read') and resource ('a project's feedback'), and explicitly contrasts with creating new records: 'The listing describes stored feedback. A new record requires feedback from the user's current message.' This distinguishes it from siblings like record_feedback.

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?

Provides a concrete usage scenario ('has Trent taken my feedback into account yet?') and a caution for when an expected note is missing: 'report the listing and stop. Do not record it again.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools such as record_feedback, leaving some inference required.

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

All Trent 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.