Tenjin

Submit feedback

submit_feedback

Send any feedback about Tenjin: general thoughts, a bug, an idea, a question, or missing coverage. Agent-facing; public, no wallet, no signature. Forwards to POST /api/feedback and returns { id }. Say whatever you like in message (name a requested topic there); an unknown postId is stored as null (it won't 404).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`postId`	No	Optional uuid of the post this is about
`contact`	No	Optional reply contact (≤ 256 chars): an email, a URL, or an XMTP-reachable wallet address (a bare address with no XMTP inbox is not reachable)
`message`	Yes	What you want to tell us, 1–2000 chars
`category`	Yes	bug \| idea \| question \| other

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses key behaviors: it forwards to a specific endpoint (POST /api/feedback), returns an { id }, and clarifies that an unknown postId is stored as null without causing a 404 error. With annotations not contradicting (readOnlyHint false confirms mutation, openWorldHint true aligns), this adds valuable behavioral insights beyond annotations.

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 concise, using three sentences to convey purpose, safety, behavior, and parameter hints. It front-loads the primary purpose and gradually addresses details, but the sentence about postId could be streamlined without losing meaning.

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 the tool's simplicity (4 params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is nearly complete. It clarifies behavior, constraints, and endpoint. Minor missing points include confirmation of whether contact is optional and if the response includes any confirmation beyond { id }, but overall it satisfies the needs for an AI agent to invoke correctly.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds marginal value by suggesting users can 'say whatever they like in `message`' and clarifying postId behavior, but this does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 specifies the verb 'send feedback' and the target resource 'Tenjin', covering multiple topics (bugs, ideas, questions). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by its unique purpose of feedback submission.

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?

The description explicitly states that the tool is agent-facing, public, and requires no wallet or signature, providing clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the unique feedback focus implies its distinct usage scenario.

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

All Tenjin tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: answer and search are both search-like but one returns a single synthesized answer vs a shortlist, which is a meaningful difference. A few overlaps exist, like get_article vs pay_and_read where both unlock content, but they handle payment differently. Naming is mostly clear but answer and search could cause temporary confusion.

Naming Consistency4/5

Overwhelmingly uses verb_noun pattern (get_article, delete_essay, list_articles, publish_essay, update_profile), which is predictable. answer and search are exceptions that don't follow the pattern, but they are the primary entry points for a key workflow, so their deviation is understandable and they still convey their purpose. Minor inconsistency keeps it from a 5.

Tool Count5/5

22 tools is on the higher end but wholly appropriate for a content marketplace that involves two distinct roles (creator and buyer) with separate write vs read flows, payment handling, search, trending signals, feedback, and image uploads. Each tool earns its place with a clear role in supporting either the publishing or the discovery/purchase workflow.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface provides complete coverage for both reader and publisher workflows. Readers can search, browse, preview, buy, read articles, and report outcomes. Creators can publish, list, update, soft-delete essays, manage their profile, upload images, track sales and stats. The answer feedback loop via report_search_outcome and get_trending is a notable addition that closes the loop. No obvious gaps for the intended domain.

Resources

Need Help?