CoinPaprika

submitFeedback

Report a problem or gap back to the CoinPaprika MCP maintainers: call it when you got stuck, a response was unexpected, information you needed was missing, or a tool did not behave as documented. Use when the user says 'this is wrong', 'report this', 'that did not work'. Low friction, partial feedback is welcome, and every submission is read.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`goal`	Yes	REQUIRED: What you (or the user behind you) were trying to accomplish.
`expected`	No	OPTIONAL: What you expected to happen.
`observed`	No	OPTIONAL: What actually happened.
`severity`	No	OPTIONAL: How badly this affected your task. Default 'minor'.	minor
`blocked_at`	No	OPTIONAL: Tool name or step where you got stuck.
`attempted_tools`	No	OPTIONAL: List of tool names you called, in order, before submitting this feedback.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	Yes	True if the feedback row was persisted.
`message`	Yes
`severity`	No
`tracking_id`	No	Stable id agents can reference in follow-up submissions; null if persistence failed.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 2, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "message": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "ok": {
+      "description": "True if the feedback row was persisted.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "severity": {
+      "enum": [
+        "blocker",
+        "major",
+        "minor",
+        "nit"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "tracking_id": {
+      "description": "Stable id agents can reference in follow-up submissions; null if persistence failed.",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "ok",
+    "message"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedJul 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations are all false hints and provide little guidance, so the description carries the burden. It adds useful behavioral context: low friction, partial feedback is acceptable, and every submission is read. It does not fully describe side effects or whether any response comes back, but the core behavior is transparent enough.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by concrete invocation triggers and a helpful reassurance. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant repetition of schema content.

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 low-complexity feedback tool, the description is complete: it explains when to use it, what counts as valid feedback, and that partial feedback is welcome. The rich input schema and existing output schema cover the remaining details an agent needs.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents every parameter thoroughly. The description adds general context about stuck points and missing information but does not need to repeat parameter semantics; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Report a problem or gap back to the CoinPaprika MCP maintainers.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from all sibling data-lookup tools, which are about fetching market data, not submitting feedback.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use conditions: got stuck, unexpected response, missing information, or tool behavior not as documented. It also maps natural user expressions like 'this is wrong' and 'report this' to invocation, which strongly helps an agent recognize the right moment to call it.

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

All CoinPaprika 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?