Tulina

feedback

Report a usage signal about oto. signal='tool_feedback' = feedback on a tool you just used (target = the tool name ; kind = bug | misleading_doc | wrong_result | praise | other). signal='gap' = a use case oto could NOT do, call it whenever you wanted to act but no oto capability covered it (target = what you were trying to accomplish ; kind = missing_tool | missing_doctrine | missing_data | other). text = optional detail. A subject already reported (same workspace, signal and target) and still awaiting a decision is not duplicated: your report is added to it and the answer says its status and decision.

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": {
      "signal": "<signal>",
      "kind": "<kind>",
      "target": "<target>"
    },
    "name": "feedback"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`_org`	No
`kind`	Yes
`text`	No
`signal`	Yes
`target`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

No schema history has been recorded yet.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load. It does disclose a meaningful trait: a duplicate report for the same workspace/signal/target is merged into the existing subject rather than created anew, and the response returns its status and decision (useful given there is no output schema). It says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or what happens after a report is decided.

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 dense paragraph, front-loaded with the two modes and their meanings, with no filler sentences. The parenthetical enumerations of kind values are compact and each clause carries information.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a five-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the modes, kind values, and dedup response behavior well. It leaves _org undefined and does not say what a caller learns after submitting a brand-new gap, so an agent cannot fully predict outcomes.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description has to define all five parameters. It does well for signal, kind, and target, giving the allowed kind values per mode and stating that target means the tool name for tool_feedback but the attempted goal for gap. The _org parameter is entirely undocumented, and the description is the only source of parameter meaning.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Report a usage signal about oto') and immediately splits it into two named modes, tool_feedback and gap, so an agent knows exactly what kind of output this produces. It does not mention the nearby sibling oto_admin_signal, so an agent has no explicit cue on how to choose between them.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Each mode carries an explicit trigger: tool_feedback is for 'a tool you just used', and gap is to be called 'whenever you wanted to act but no oto capability covered it'. That is a concrete when-to-call rule rather than an implied one, with the target semantics spelled out per mode.

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

All Tulina 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?