turnale

Record product feedback

record_feedback

Record a request for something Turnale does not support yet (a format, scoring variant, or feature), so it can be considered for the roadmap. Call this only when the organiser asked for something unsupported AND agreed to have it noted. Describe the missing capability in general terms — NEVER include player names, contact details, or tournament keys.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`category`	Yes
`feedback`	Yes	What the organiser wanted, summarised without any personal data (max 1000 characters — room for the problem, the workaround tried, and the suggested scope)
`related_tool`	No	The tool this relates to, if any

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`summary`	Yes
`recorded`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedAug 12, 2026

removedInput schema / $schema

Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"

removedOutput schema / $schema

Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"

Changed2 schema fields changedJul 30, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / feedback / description

Previous value: -"What the organiser wanted, summarised without any personal data"New value: +"What the organiser wanted, summarised without any personal data (max 1000 characters — room for the problem, the workaround tried, and the suggested scope)"

changedInput schema / properties / feedback / maxLength
```
Previous value: -500New value: +1000
```

First observedJul 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations (all false) provide minimal safety info, so the description carries the burden. It adds crucial behavioral guidance: never include player names, contact details, or tournament keys, and describe missing capability in general terms. This goes well beyond the simple write operation implied by readOnlyHint=false.

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?

The description is three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, condition, and content constraints. It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids any filler or repetition.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple feedback-recording tool, the description covers purpose, usage condition, and content constraints completely. An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. No gaps remain.

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?

The schema already describes 'feedback' and 'related_tool', and the enum for 'category' is self-explanatory. The description adds practical parameter guidance by instructing that the feedback should be a general summary without personal data, which directly clarifies how to fill the 'feedback' field.

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 clearly states the tool records a request for unsupported functionality, using specific verbs and resource ('Record a request for something Turnale does not support yet'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools by focusing on roadmap feedback, which none of the tournament/player management siblings handle.

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?

The description provides explicit usage conditions: 'Call this only when the organiser asked for something unsupported AND agreed to have it noted.' This makes the when-to-use unambiguous, and although no alternative tools are named, the condition inherently excludes cases where the feature is supported.

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

All turnale 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.