FeatureJet

propose_status

Propose a status change for the board owner to confirm.

    The agent-honest way to mark work done: nothing changes on the
    public board and no voter is notified until a human confirms the
    proposal from the dashboard. status is one of
    open|planned|in_progress|shipped|declined; a new proposal replaces
    any pending one. Prefer this over update_post's direct status flip.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note`	No
`slug`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`post_id`	Yes
`action_key`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Discloses key behaviors: no public board changes, no voter notification until human confirms, new proposals replace pending ones. Lists valid status values. With no annotations, the description fully informs the agent of safety and implications.

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?

Description is well-structured: main purpose first, then behavioral details, then contrast. A bit verbose but each sentence adds value. Could be slightly shortened without losing meaning.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, return values are not required. Covers the proposal mechanism, contrast with sibling, and status options. Could mention how to confirm or manage proposals, but adequate for a single-purpose tool.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains the 'status' parameter and its allowed values, but does not describe slug, post_id, note, or action_key. Partial compensation—core parameter is covered, but others lack context.

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?

Clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Propose a status change for the board owner to confirm.' It explains the agent-honest behavior and distinguishes from update_post by emphasizing human confirmation. The description directly answers what the tool does.

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?

Explicitly advises preferring this tool over update_post for direct status flips: 'Prefer this over update_post's direct status flip.' It provides clear context for when to use (gentle, human-confirmed updates) and implies when not to use (direct changes without approval).

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

All FeatureJet 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

B3.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

All tools have clearly distinct purposes. The board, post, comment, vote, analytics, changelog, queue, and utility tools each target different resources or actions without overlap.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow verb_noun snake_case (e.g., create_board, get_post). Two tools (ping, whoami) are not verb_noun but are standard conventions, keeping overall consistency high.

Tool Count5/5

22 tools is well-scoped for a feedback board management server. Each tool covers a distinct operation without unnecessary duplication or bloat.

Completeness4/5

Covers core lifecycle for boards (CRUD + publish/unpublish), posts (CRUD + claim/release + status proposal + evidence), and comments (create/list). Missing comment update/delete and vote creation, but these are minor gaps for the domain.

Resources

Need Help?