ChargerDojo

Send feedback

chargerdojo_send_feedback

Send a message to the people who build ChargerDojo: something missing, a bug, a question, or a verdict the person believes is wrong. Returns a reference.

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": {
      "kind": "<kind>",
      "message": "<message>"
    },
    "name": "chargerdojo_send_feedback"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`kind`	Yes
`tool`	No	The ChargerDojo tool that fell short, when one did.
`checkId`	No
`message`	Yes	What the person wanted and could not do, in their words. Leave out tokens and passwords. ChargerDojo masks the formats it knows but cannot catch every secret.
`reportId`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only but non-destructive write, and the description adds a genuine behavioral fact not carried anywhere else: it "Returns a reference." That matters because there is no output schema. However, it says nothing about who receives the feedback, expected turnaround, rate limits, or whether submissions are idempotent, which is the remaining burden for a write tool.

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?

Two short sentences: the first front-loads the action and its categories, the second delivers the return behavior. Nothing is padded and there is no restating of the tool name or title.

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 write tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and the existence of a returned reference, which is the minimum an agent needs to call it confidently. It falls short on the two identifier parameters and on any submission/side-effect context, leaving meaningful gaps for a five-parameter mutation.

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?

Schema description coverage is low (40%), so the description must carry weight; it does partially by spelling out the categories behind the required `kind` enum in natural language. But `checkId` and `reportId` receive no explanation in either the schema or the description, leaving the agent to guess when a report reference is expected versus a check reference.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Send a message to the people who build ChargerDojo") and enumerates the message categories, so the agent immediately understands this is a human-directed feedback channel rather than a conformance/run tool. That contrasts cleanly with every sibling, all of which inspect or execute journeys, runs, and checks.

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?

It names the triggering situations well: something missing, a bug, a question, or a disputed verdict. There are no explicit exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., whether feedback should accompany a specific run or checkId), and no statement of what this tool is *not* for, so it stops short of the top score.

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

All ChargerDojo 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?