ContinueOps Public MCP

Report a problem with ContinueOps public content

submit_feedback

Report that a public ContinueOps page or MCP tool response is incorrect, outdated, incomplete or confusing, so the team can fix it. Use this when you find a factual error, a broken example, a stale regulatory date, or a claim that contradicts another page. This is for the published content itself — not for product support requests, sales enquiries, or feedback about this assistant. Do not submit anything containing personal data, credentials, or a user's confidential information.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`kind`	No	The category of problem.	other
`path`	Yes	The page path the feedback is about, e.g. '/dora' or '/pricing'. Use the tool name if the problem is in a tool response.
`feedback`	Yes	What is wrong, and what it should say instead. Be specific — quote the offending text.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent action, and the description reinforces submission semantics ('so the team can fix it'). It adds a valuable safety warning about not including personal or confidential information. However, it doesn't disclose the submission outcome (e.g., whether a confirmation is returned) or irreversibility, which would strengthen transparency.

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 three sentences with the main purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. Every sentence contributes: purpose, usage examples, and exclusions/warnings. There is no redundancy or fluff.

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 simple 3-parameter feedback tool with a complete schema and annotations, the description covers purpose, use cases, exclusions, and safety constraints. No output schema exists, but return values are not critical for a submission tool. Sibling tools are clearly different in function, and the description resolves any ambiguity about what to use this tool for.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with each parameter described, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving examples that map to the 'kind' enum categories (factual error, broken example, stale date, contradiction), enriching the meaning of the enum beyond the schema. It doesn't add new info about 'path' or 'feedback', but the examples are helpful.

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 explicitly states the tool reports issues with public ContinueOps pages or MCP tool responses, with a specific list of problem types (incorrect, outdated, incomplete, confusing). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling content tools by focusing on feedback submission rather than browsing or generating content.

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?

The description provides concrete when-to-use triggers (factual errors, broken examples, stale dates, contradictions) and explicit exclusions (product support, sales, assistant feedback). It also warns against submitting personal data, giving clear boundaries for appropriate use.

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

All ContinueOps Public MCP 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

A4.3/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct domain: runbook templates, DORA readiness, compliance frameworks, BCP structure, ContinueOps info, learning content, and feedback. The descriptions are detailed and make the boundaries clear, so an agent is unlikely to confuse them.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern (browse_, explore_, generate_, get_, search_, submit_), but 'dora_readiness_assessment' deviates by being a noun phrase. This is a minor inconsistency, though the overall pattern is still readable and predictable.

Tool Count5/5

With 7 tools, the server is well-scoped for its public informational purpose. Each tool earns its place, covering browsing, assessment, lookup, generation, discovery, and feedback without unnecessary bloat.

Completeness4/5

The server covers a broad range of resilience and compliance operations, from exploring frameworks and generating BCP structures to searching learning content and submitting feedback. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct tool to retrieve a specific runbook template or a full DORA assessment), but agents can work around these via the provided URLs and forms.

Resources

Need Help?