Skip to main content
Glama

Loadster

by com.loadster
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Submit Feedback

submit_feedback

Optional. Sends a note about this tool surface to the Loadster team, who read it to fix what the surface got wrong. Nothing requires it and no task depends on it. A note is about the tools themselves: what worked, what was missing or confusing, what needed a workaround. It should not carry conversation data: the user's prompts, their credentials, or anything from their account. Feedback is at most 2000 characters; a longer submission is rejected rather than truncated.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
outcomeYesHow the task ended.
feedbackYesWhat worked and what did not about the tools, in at most 2000 characters.
taskDescriptionNoThe kind of task the note is about, in your own summary rather than the user's wording, in at most 200 characters.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / feedback / description
      Previous value: -"What worked and what did not, in at most 2000 characters."New value: +"What worked and what did not about the tools, in at most 2000 characters."
    • changedInput schema / properties / taskDescription / description
      Previous value: -"What the task was, in at most 200 characters. Nothing on the server knows what you were doing, so this is the only context a reader has beyond the tool calls themselves."New value: +"The kind of task the note is about, in your own summary rather than the user's wording, in at most 200 characters."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

While annotations are sparse (readOnlyHint=false, etc.), the description discloses critical behavior: that feedback is optional, has a 2000-character limit, that longer submissions are rejected rather than truncated, and that it must not carry sensitive data. It clearly indicates that this is a non-essential side effect, which is valuable beyond the annotations.

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 concise, front-loaded with the 'Optional' tag and purpose, and every sentence earns its place. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, content constraints, and length behavior without fluff.

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 that the tool is a simple side-action with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the purpose, optional usage, content restrictions, and rejection on length. However, it does not mention what happens on successful submission (e.g., response or confirmation), but given the low complexity and lack of output schema, this is a minor gap.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning the schema already documents each parameter (outcome, feedback, taskDescription). The description adds context about the feedback content and length limit, but does not significantly add detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description complements with usage 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?

The description clearly states this tool sends feedback about the tool surface to the Loadster team)Skip. It explicitly notes that nothing requires it and no task depends on it, which disambiguates its purpose from other action tools. The verb is specific ('sends a note') and the resource is clear ('about this tool surface').

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 says 'Optional' and explicitly states when it is not needed ('Nothing requires it and no task depends on it'). It clarifies feedback content boundaries: what it should and should not contain (excluding conversation data) and warns about the length limit being rejected. This guidance is direct and excludes misuse.

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

All Loadster toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Give agents eyes on the webHosted screenshot MCP. Send a URL, get a pixel-perfect image. $0.002 per grab. Works with Claude, Cursor, and Codex.grabbit.liveAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources