Browse the community feedback board — open suggestions/issues/features ranked by votes, with whether you've voted. Filter by category or status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | open|triaged|planned|shipped|declined|all (default: active board) | |
| category | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate read-only, and the description adds behavioral details about ranking by votes and user vote status. It does not disclose limitations like pagination or ordering, but the added context goes beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main verb and includes essential details. It is concise and every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with no output schema, the description explains what is returned (ranked items and vote status) and how to filter. It does not mention pagination or exact output format, but for the low complexity, it is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides a description for status and enum values for category. The description only mentions 'filter by category or status' without adding semantic detail beyond the schema, so with 50% coverage, it partially compensates but does not fully explain the parameter meanings.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool browses the community feedback board, lists open suggestions/issues/features ranked by votes, and shows whether the user has voted. It distinguishes from sibling tools like feedback_submit and feedback_vote by focusing on browsing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context that this is a read-only browsing tool with filtering options, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The verb 'browse' implies the usage scenario without naming exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but there is potential confusion between 'decision' and 'reason', both offering advisory output. Also, 'review', 'witness', 'prove', and 'verify_proof' overlap in the proofs space, though descriptions differentiate them. Overall, an agent can disambiguate with careful reading.
All tool names use lowercase and underscores (snake_case), which is consistent. However, the verbs vary: some are imperative (e.g., 'browse', 'execute'), while others are nouns (e.g., 'signals', 'ledger'), breaking a strict verb_noun pattern. Overall, the naming is readable and mostly predictable.
With 30 tools, the surface is too large for a well-scoped server. Many functions could be separated (e.g., memory, workspace, feedback, marketplace). This excess makes it harder for an agent to navigate and select the right tool quickly.
The tool set covers core CRUD for memory and workspace, plus feedback, marketplace purchase, bounties, and verification. However, there is no tool to list or search marketplace listings, and workspace creation is only implicit via 'execute'. These gaps hinder fluid workflows.
