Skip to main content
Glama

Send product feedback to support

send_feedback
Destructive

Send product feedback to support

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": {
      "message": "<message>"
    },
    "name": "send_feedback"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
messageYesThe owner's feedback in their own words, shared with support at their request.
workspaceNoLeave out for the token's workspace (ws_…).
idempotency_keyNoA new UUID per request; resending the same key and request is a safe retry.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

C2.1/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=false, which is counterintuitive for a feedback-sending tool, and the description offers no explanation of what is destroyed, where the feedback goes, or whether it leaves the workspace. With annotations present the bar is lower, but the description adds zero behavioral context and leaves the destructive hint unexplained.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The single sentence is front-loaded and free of padding, but it duplicates the title exactly and therefore does not earn its place as distinct information. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a mutation tool flagged destructiveHint=true with no output schema, the description should explain the effect of the call and confirm whether feedback is delivered externally. None of that is present, and the destructive flag is left wholly unexplained even though the schema at least covers parameters.

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% — message, workspace, and idempotency_key each carry their own documentation, including the safe-retry semantics of the idempotency key. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus requestApproval, createPost, or the other write-oriented siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. An agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources