Atly

Send feedback

submit_feedback

Tell us how a call went

Reference the call_id of any earlier response and say whether it helped, and optionally why, in a sentence about the result — what was right, missing or wrong. Do not include the user's words, the conversation, or anything about the person. Nothing is overwritten: sending again for the same call adds a new version and keeps the earlier ones (up to 50 per call). Lightly rate-limited.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`notes`	No	About the result only — never the conversation or the user.
`call_id`	Yes
`outcome`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`call_id`	No
`version`	No	Which submission for this call this is (1 for the first); earlier ones are kept.
`recorded`	No
`doc_notes`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 27, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / version

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+      "minimum": -9007199254740991,
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "description": "Which submission for this call this is (1 for the first); earlier ones are kept."
+}

Changed1 schema field changedOct 25, 2026
- changedOutput schema / additionalProperties
```
Previous value: -falseNew value: +{}
```
First observedOct 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (which only declare it is a non-destructive, non-open-world write), the description discloses that nothing is overwritten, that repeat submissions create versions retaining up to 50 per call, that it is lightly rate-limited, and that no user words or personal data may be included. These are exactly the operational and privacy facts an agent needs and cannot get from structured fields.

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 purpose is front-loaded, followed by the constraint and then the behavioral facts, in a compact paragraph with no wasted sentences. There is minor duplication between the privacy instruction and the schema's notes description, but it is defensible emphasis.

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 3-parameter write tool with an output schema and reasonable annotations, the description covers purpose, privacy constraints, idempotency/versioning behavior, and rate limiting. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

With only 33% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that call_id refers to an earlier response, characterizes outcome as whether the result helped, and reinforces that notes should cover only the result. The enum values themselves go unglossed, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

"Tell us how a call went" names the action and the subject (post-call feedback) in a way that is unmistakable and clearly distinct from the lookup-oriented siblings (search_places, get_docs, list_areas). It stops just short of 5 because the verb is conversational rather than a precise operation name, but an agent can still tell instantly what the tool does.

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 tells the agent exactly when to invoke it: reference the call_id of an earlier response and report whether it helped. It gives clear context but names no alternative or exclusion path (trivially so, since no sibling overlaps), so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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

All Atly 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.