Kindwise Identification

Submit trial feedback

submit_feedback

Send English feedback about this Kindwise agent trial as a product — not about a single plant/insect/mushroom identification. Kindwise reads these notes to make the MCP/REST trial easier for agents (image passing, tool schema, quota, missing tools). Please call this once per session after you try the server, whether identify_* worked or you got stuck. Write comment in English: what was hard, what to change, what worked. Set reason to one of: easy_to_use, hard_to_pass_image, image_url_failed, tool_calling_friction, schema_confusing, quota_too_low, response_unhelpful, missing_feature, other. Does not consume the daily identification quota. Does not attach to a Kindwise identification.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`rating`	No	Optional 0–5 score for how easy this trial was to use.
`reason`	Yes	easy_to_use = Trial was easy to use; hard_to_pass_image = Hard to pass an image into the tools; image_url_failed = Image URL failed (e.g. 424); tool_calling_friction = Having to call a tool got in the way; schema_confusing = Tool schema or arguments were confusing; quota_too_low = Daily IP cap got in the way; response_unhelpful = Tool result was hard to use (too large, unclear, …); missing_feature = Wanted a capability this trial does not expose; other = Other
`comment`	Yes	English note about this trial service (1–3 sentences): what was hard, what to improve, what worked. Not a verdict on one identification.
`had_image`	No	True if the user had a photo (in chat or a URL) even if you could not pass it to identify_*.
`client_name`	No	MCP client or host app name, if known (e.g. Cursor, Claude).
`called_identify`	No	True if you already called an identify_* tool in this session.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false), the description adds that feedback does not consume the daily quota and does not attach to an identification, clarifying side effects. This is useful transparency beyond the basic booleans.

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 description is front-loaded with purpose, but it repeats the entire reason enum list and other schema details, making it verbose. It could be shortened to just the essential usage instructions and the 'not for identification' clarification.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description fully explains when to use, what to include, and the purpose. It also clarifies non-attachment to identification and quota impact, making the tool's context complete for an agent.

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 descriptions cover all parameters with detailed explanations (e.g., reason enum meanings). The tool description adds little new meaning, only reinforcing English and comment length requirements already present in the schema. With high schema coverage, 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?

Clearly states the verb 'Send' and the resource 'feedback' about the Kindwise agent trial, and explicitly distinguishes it from identification tools. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 instructs to call once per session after trying the server, and clarifies when not to use it (not about a single identification). This provides clear timing and context relative to sibling identify_* tools.

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

All Kindwise Identification 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

A4.5/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each identification tool targets a distinct organism group (plant, insect, mushroom) and diagnose_crop is clearly separate for crop health issues. submit_feedback is unambiguous as a meta-tool. No two tools appear interchangeable.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a clear identify_<organism> pattern, with diagnose_crop as a meaningful exception that reflects its different purpose. submit_feedback also fits the verb_noun convention, so the overall pattern is consistent with only a minor deviation.

Tool Count5/5

Five tools is a well-scoped set for a species-identification service: four domain tools covering the main organism categories plus one feedback tool. Each tool has a clear, non-redundant role.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers the core identification needs for plants, insects, mushrooms, and crop diseases, plus feedback for the trial. A minor gap is the lack of any retrieval/history mechanism, but it is not essential for the stated trial purpose.

Resources

Need Help?