DevReply

Send feedback to DevReply

send_feedback

Tell the DevReply team what's missing, broken, confusing or good in DevReply itself (the SDKs, the setup guide, the dashboard, these MCP tools), in your own words. Please do: we read every one and build the backlog from it; complaints and requests are exactly what we want. One topic per call, with the reasoning: why you need it, the use case, what it would improve, what you do today instead, and what you'd propose, so we can weigh it against where DevReply is going. Never include secrets or the app's end users' personal data.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`why`	No	Why you need it: the problem, and what you were trying to do when you hit it. Required for missing and idea.
`area`	No	The part of DevReply it's about, e.g. ios or mcp.
`kind`	Yes	bug, missing (a feature or API you needed), confusing, docs, idea, or praise.
`title`	Yes	One line, up to 160 characters.
`app_id`	No	The app's id (from list_apps). Optional when there is only one.
`impact`	No	Does it block the app, degrade it, or is it nice to have?
`details`	No	What you tried, what happened, what you expected or would like. Code, API names and versions help.
`outcome`	No	What would improve, and for whom (the app's users, its team, you).
`proposal`	No	The API or solution you'd suggest, with an example call if you have one.
`use_case`	No	The concrete situation in the app (e.g. 'billing chats from the paywall arrive without the store error'). Required for missing and idea.
`workaround`	No	What you do today instead, if anything, and what it costs.
`app_context`	No	The kind of app, its stack and scale, anything that makes the request make sense. No secrets, no user data.
`sdk_version`	No	The DevReply SDK version the app uses, if it's about an SDK, e.g. "0.5.0".

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	The feedback's id.
`message`	Yes	A thank-you from the DevReply team.
`received`	Yes	Always true: it was saved.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 5, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / area / description

Added value: +"The part of DevReply it's about, e.g. ios or mcp."

addedInput schema / properties / sdk_version / description

Added value: +"The DevReply SDK version the app uses, if it's about an SDK, e.g. \"0.5.0\"."

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "id": {
+      "description": "The feedback's id.",
+      "format": "uuid",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "message": {
+      "description": "A thank-you from the DevReply team.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "received": {
+      "description": "Always true: it was saved.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "id",
+    "received",
+    "message"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedOct 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (non-destructive, non-idempotent write), and the description goes beyond them: it reveals the human audience ('we read every one'), the downstream effect (it builds the backlog), and a hard privacy constraint (no secrets, no end-user personal data). It omits rate limits, response expectations, or whether a ticket is filed, so it stops short of full transparency.

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?

Front-loads the purpose before the persuasion and the safety note is well placed at the end. It is slightly padded, though — 'Please do: we read every one and build the backlog from it; complaints and requests are exactly what we want' is encouragement rather than specification and could be halved without loss.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and all 13 inputs are documented. The description covers purpose, required narrative fields and privacy constraints; the only gap is that it does not say whether feedback receives a reply or is fire-and-forget.

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 coverage is 100% and every one of the 13 parameters carries a description, so the schema already carries the load. The description's walk-through of why/use case/outcome/workaround/proposal largely restates those schema descriptions rather than adding new semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (tell) and a precisely scoped resource: feedback about DevReply itself — 'the SDKs, the setup guide, the dashboard, these MCP tools.' This scope cleanly separates it from app-facing siblings like reply_to_user or add_note, which operate on end users rather than the product team.

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?

Gives clear context for when to use it ('missing, broken, confusing or good') and an explicit structural rule ('One topic per call, with the reasoning'), plus an exclusion via the secret/personal-data prohibition. It never names a sibling alternative such as reply_to_user, so routing is implied rather than stated.

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

All DevReply 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?